Gun Control question for liberals?

[Blues Man]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

 

[Pogo]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Do you mean liberals, or Social Marxist authoritarians?

No liberals have posted here
since the OP, but a shit ton of leftist shills have.

I'll make mark if ary a liberal wanders into here

You missed the first several posts here last night then, when the OP's strawman in his first sentence (and indeed in his thread title) was called out for the strawman it is by multiple Liberals.

Guess those posts were 'inconvenient' so let's just go What posts? I don't see anything. Oh look! A bird!

You can skip "making mark" though, as we're not sure what that is.

You, Crepitus, and Bulldog are not liberals. You are Social Marxist leftist shills. AKA On the level of dog poo.

Posted from Hallucination-World, where saying so makes it so, via Crapatalk

 

[Pogo]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.

Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.

/——-/ The OPs first sentence, “The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. ” is not a Strawman. It’s accurate and the libs have challenged the 2nd Amendment in court claiming it only applies to a well regulated militia. You owe the OP an apology.

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.

He is however entitled to offer one for his arrogance and illogic to the readers whose intelligence he insulted.

 

[Blues Man]

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

And if you never expect it and it happens what do you do?

And FYI it does happen.

I was set upon by 3 thugs when I was 18 when I was doing nothing but walking home after a double shift and was left on the street in the dead of winter with 3 cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital, a lacerated spleen and a concussion.

I still have the scar under my left eye to remind me that there is real violence in this world

 

[Blues Man]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

In a democratic republic, police can not have as many guns as they wish.
In a democratic republic, the authority for anyone to have weapons comes from the inherent rights of individuals, and only these inherent rights of individuals are the source of ability for police to have guns.
If you restrict the rights of individuals to have guns, then these individual then no longer would have the authority to allow police, (which they create), to have guns, so then police would have to be disarmed first.

And no, there is no way, means, practical ability, or legal basis for government to keep weapons out of the hands of anyone. If there are dangerous people like criminals, crazies, etc., then you supervise them, not the possible weapons they could employ. They would be just as dangerous with cars, poisons, fertilizers, flammables, etc.

Registration, licensing, background checks, reporting, etc., are all just inherently illegal in a democratic republic.
The founders considered making military grade weapons mandatory, because they are essential to the existence of a democratic republic.
Restrict them and you no longer have a democratic republic, no matter what you claim.
The main threat to any democratic republic always comes from government corruption, not armed private citizens.

Police are there for our protection

They are trained and regulated. I have no issue providing them any weapon they need to keep us safe

Armed citizens cause 32,000 gun deaths a year. We need to be protected from them. They are the threat

Wrong. Police are not there to protect you. They're there to enforce the law. You're responsible for your own self protection.

Since it says "to protect and serve" on the side of the police cars and it's in the emblem for the police dept, I would assume that is what they are there for.

Tell that to the judge that ruled the police are in no way obligated to come to your aid

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

 

[Cellblock2429]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.

Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.

/——-/ The OPs first sentence, “The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. ” is not a Strawman. It’s accurate and the libs have challenged the 2nd Amendment in court claiming it only applies to a well regulated militia. You owe the OP an apology.

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.

/—-/ You gun grabbers don’t fool us. Liberals Now Openly Admit: ‘We Must Destroy the Second Amendment’

 

[Pogo]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.

Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.

/——-/ The OPs first sentence, “The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. ” is not a Strawman. It’s accurate and the libs have challenged the 2nd Amendment in court claiming it only applies to a well regulated militia. You owe the OP an apology.

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.

/—-/ You gun grabbers don’t fool us. Liberals Now Openly Admit: ‘We Must Destroy the Second Amendment’
View attachment 268306

Yyyyyyyeeeeaaahhhhh ummmmmmm...... you just posted a link to Alex John Brinkley Jones making the same bullshit term conflation that the OP did.

You DO realize that makes our point all over again, do you not?

 

[Cellblock2429]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.

Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.

/——-/ The OPs first sentence, “The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. ” is not a Strawman. It’s accurate and the libs have challenged the 2nd Amendment in court claiming it only applies to a well regulated militia. You owe the OP an apology.

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.

/—-/ You gun grabbers don’t fool us. Liberals Now Openly Admit: ‘We Must Destroy the Second Amendment’
View attachment 268306

Yyyyyyyeeeeaaahhhhh ummmmmmm...... you just posted a link to Alex John Brinkley Jones making the same bullshit term conflation that the OP did.

You DO realize that makes our point all over again, do you not?

/——-/,Oh you’d Grab our guns if you thought you’d succeed No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

And?

That in no manner mitigates the fact that background checks work, they do keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons not authorized to possess a gun.

 

[rightwinger]

It is as simple as this

If you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target practice, buy what you want

If you want a handgun, take appropriate training, show you are responsible, get a license and registration

If you want an assault rifle with a massive magazine......same thing

 

[Pogo]

"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.

Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.

/——-/ The OPs first sentence, “The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. ” is not a Strawman. It’s accurate and the libs have challenged the 2nd Amendment in court claiming it only applies to a well regulated militia. You owe the OP an apology.

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.

/—-/ You gun grabbers don’t fool us. Liberals Now Openly Admit: ‘We Must Destroy the Second Amendment’
View attachment 268306

Yyyyyyyeeeeaaahhhhh ummmmmmm...... you just posted a link to Alex John Brinkley Jones making the same bullshit term conflation that the OP did.

You DO realize that makes our point all over again, do you not?

/——-/,Oh you’d Grab our guns if you thought you’d succeed No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

Since you already made this personal Squimpy, you go ahead and show the class anywhere I've posted anything remotely about wanting to "grab guns" in the six and a half years I've been here. Ever. Anywhere.

Go ahead. The whole world's waiting.

Come on Zippo, go ******* find it. It was the very issue I joined to jump into. There's plenty of material on the topic with my name on it. Go fetch.


******* DUMBASS.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It is as simple as this

If you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target practice, buy what you want

If you want a handgun, take appropriate training, show you are responsible, get a license and registration

If you want an assault rifle with a massive magazine......same thing

/——/ NO such thing as an assault weapon

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——-/ The OPs first sentence, “The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. ” is not a Strawman. It’s accurate and the libs have challenged the 2nd Amendment in court claiming it only applies to a well regulated militia. You owe the OP an apology.

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.

/—-/ You gun grabbers don’t fool us. Liberals Now Openly Admit: ‘We Must Destroy the Second Amendment’
View attachment 268306

Yyyyyyyeeeeaaahhhhh ummmmmmm...... you just posted a link to Alex John Brinkley Jones making the same bullshit term conflation that the OP did.

You DO realize that makes our point all over again, do you not?

/——-/,Oh you’d Grab our guns if you thought you’d succeed No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

Since you already made this personal Squimpy, you go ahead and show the class anywhere I've posted anything remotely about wanting to "grab guns" in the six and a half years I've been here. Ever. Anywhere.

Go ahead. The whole world's waiting.

Come on Zippo, go ******* find it. It was the very issue I joined to jump into. There's plenty of material on the topic with my name on it. Go fetch.


******* DUMBASS.

/——/ Sorry, I never set up a log of gun grabber posts admitting they want to grab our guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is as simple as this

If you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target practice, buy what you want

If you want a handgun, take appropriate training, show you are responsible, get a license and registration

If you want an assault rifle with a massive magazine......same thing

So that's what you want for us to exercise our constitutional rights? And yet you leftists are up in arms (no pun intended) when we pass laws to simply get a stupid ID to vote????

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fact: ‘liberals’ do not oppose the private ownership of guns.

Fact: there are no ‘gun grabbers’; no one advocates for the ‘confiscation’ of firearms, ‘liberals’ in particular.

Fact: ‘liberals’ own guns, carry guns pursuant to lawful self-defense, and enjoy the shooting sports.

Fact: ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment case law, consider that case law to be settled and accepted, and advocate for Constitutional firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Fact: the thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

 

[2aguy]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

 

[Crepitus]

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

sorry sweety but your car isnt a protected right,,,

since all background checks violate that right , them and the NRA can **** themselves,,,

Why would background checks violate your rights?

Lol
We already have background checks on all firearms purchased in retail, you ******* retard.

Exactly. That doesn't violate your rights, why would individual sales checks do so?

 

[Pogo]

Fact: ‘liberals’ do not oppose the private ownership of guns.

Fact: there are no ‘gun grabbers’; no one advocates for the ‘confiscation’ of firearms, ‘liberals’ in particular.

Fact: ‘liberals’ own guns, carry guns pursuant to lawful self-defense, and enjoy the shooting sports.

Fact: ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment case law, consider that case law to be settled and accepted, and advocate for Constitutional firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Fact: the thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

Fact: Liberals wrote the Second Amendment.

I mean literally.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as ****, not more accurate.

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed is a member of the family.

Your point=dipshit?

You came all the way from the canal to be "**** You"'d by me.

GTFO HERE

I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.

That is such a ******* lie.

We have all been trained and taught to respect the destructive power of firearms in my house.

I started them out at a very young age. My kids have EXCELLENT safety discipline.



.

And still, numbers don't lie.

But commies do lie.

Freedom is more important. If you don't agree, perhaps you belong on a place with less freedom.

.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.

/—-/ You gun grabbers don’t fool us. Liberals Now Openly Admit: ‘We Must Destroy the Second Amendment’
View attachment 268306

Yyyyyyyeeeeaaahhhhh ummmmmmm...... you just posted a link to Alex John Brinkley Jones making the same bullshit term conflation that the OP did.

You DO realize that makes our point all over again, do you not?

/——-/,Oh you’d Grab our guns if you thought you’d succeed No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

Since you already made this personal Squimpy, you go ahead and show the class anywhere I've posted anything remotely about wanting to "grab guns" in the six and a half years I've been here. Ever. Anywhere.

Go ahead. The whole world's waiting.

Come on Zippo, go ******* find it. It was the very issue I joined to jump into. There's plenty of material on the topic with my name on it. Go fetch.


******* DUMBASS.

/——/ Sorry, I never set up a log of gun grabber posts admitting they want to grab our guns.

Exactly. You have no such evidence because you just pulled it out of your ass. Which makes you a liar, and thus dismissed.

I know EXACTLY what I've posted on this site, and elsewhere. Every god damned one.