Gun Control question for liberals?

[Marion Morrison]

Having the right to go to the church of your choice without a license is the same as having the right to own a gun with a 30 round ammo drum? Creptitus, I think that KGB's train left the station without his baggage.

30 round magazines are not drums, dumbass. Aren't you supposed to be a man? Something's wrong with you, you dolt.

Oh, Crepitus is your buddy?

Lemme guess, you 2 snuggle up in a sleeping bag and read Das Kapital with a flashlight at night, amirite?

Snug as 2 fags in a bag and queer for each other.

 

[toobfreak]

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?

Don't look for a rational response from an irrational mind. In reality, the Left:

1. Doesn't want citizens to own guns. Since Leftists don't trust themself to hold a gun, they don't think anyone else can be trusted either.
2. Don't want police to hold guns. They see the police as an extension of the brutal Authoritarian State here to oppress minorities (them).
3. Don't want Trump or even the military to hold guns. Their response on the 4th shows how they feel about the president, and they are equally hostile towards the military feeling the military is simply an expensive, bloodthirsty, neocon organization hell bent on constant war in the world of otherwise peaceful people.
4. Honestly believes that if America was simply folded or crushed in its military and world influence, that somehow the rest of the world would simply spring into this garden utopia of harmony rather than fall farther apart.
   
5. That only leaves the criminal. The Left is OK with the criminal element staying armed because not only haven't they the power to disarm them, but they believe that crime and criminals are just nature's way of inflicting justice upon the evil, western, white, Neo-christian civilization, the ROOT of all evil.

 

[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.

No apology required. I stated an opinion based on tenor. Here’s another one on what I perceive from Conservative tenor: Conservatives LIKE private citizens owning guns. Their are going to be exceptions in both cases. I based my opinion on my observations. It’s an opinion; I did not state an absolute.

"Tenor"/"tenure". Apparently you're not familiar with either one.

And yes you absolutely DID state an absolute, if we ignore the ignorance of "tenure". You made a flat declarative sentence employing the word "is". That's a blatant strawman, and you got called on it, immediately.

You might say it's a strawman because there's nothing to bass it on, but you wouldn't even get that pun since you don't even understand your own terminology.

 

[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?

Don't look for a rational response from an irrational mind. In reality, the Left:

1. Doesn't want citizens to own guns. Since Leftists don't trust themself to hold a gun, they don't think anyone else can be trusted either.
2. Don't want police to hold guns. They see the police as an extension of the brutal Authoritarian State here to oppress minorities (them).
3. Don't want Trump or even the military to hold guns. Their response on the 4th shows how they feel about the president, and they are equally hostile towards the military feeling the military is simply an expensive, bloodthirsty, neocon organization hell bent on constant war in the world of otherwise peaceful people.
4. Honestly believes that if America was simply folded or crushed in its military and world influence, that somehow the rest of the world would simply spring into this garden utopia of harmony rather than fall farther apart.
   
5. That only leaves the criminal. The Left is OK with the criminal element staying armed because not only haven't they the power to disarm them, but they believe that crime and criminals are just nature's way of inflicting justice upon the evil, western, white, Neo-christian civilization, the ROOT of all evil.

See what I mean OP? You clearly addressed "Liberals" in your title; then you cited "Liberals" twice in your OP, never mentioning "the left". And here's another clown who sees that and reads, "the Left".

Lost in space.

 

[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?

Well that is a conserve's interpretation and we know that it is somewhat simplistic

I am for gun control which is different than "Turned over their guns"

Explain why would anyone need an assault rifle when they can have various other weapons with no problems

I am for gun registration is there a problem with registering your gun

You can keep your guns but the wild wild west is long gone.

You need airdropped into the middle of the Everglades at night. No gun for you!

You need to learn how the verb "to be" works.

 

[Flopper]

Actually many home break-ins are done by more than one assailant. The only difference between an AK and any other semi-automatic weapon is that the AK is scarier looking. Granted, it provides more accurate distance shooting, but other than that, it's simply a semi-automatic weapon no different than a 9mm or 38. I can shoot my 9mm just as fast as somebody shooting an AK.

Ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce violence

Florida man uses AK-47 to defend himself against three armed assailants (VIDEO)

Houston Man Shoots 5 Attackers With AK-47 in Self-Defense

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 by that gun is a member of the family.

That simply is not true.
While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.
Suicide is a normal and reasonable choice at some point in everyone's life, as long as physician assisted suicide is not an option.
Second is that millions of serious violent crimes are prevented every year by people using guns, without anyone having to be shot, much less killed.
So the idea firearms pose a significant danger to a household, is just flat out false.
Home invasions are not at all rare.
I have had 10 car break ins, 4 garage break ins, and 2 home invasions already.
Never had to fire a shot, did not try to apprehend anyone, but could not have scared them away unless I was armed.
Every household used to be armed and still should be.
Any household not armed, is being irresponsible.
The average is everyone will need to be armed at least 2.5 times in a lifetime.

While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.

I wonder if that would be your response if it we were talking about your son or daughter

Of course it would be.
If I had screwed up as a parent so badly that my children wanted to die, I would be the last person to then force them to not do what they wanted.
Suicide is caused by many long standing failures by family, health care, society, etc.
You can't fix it by passing laws to put more people in jail.
That is even worse, and deserves punishment.

I think almost any parent who lost their child to suicide would have wished that someone would have tried stop it.

I have had a suicide in my family and frankly, I think your statement is not only cruel but inaccurate. Almost every parent of a child who commits suicide feels responsible, but in most cases there's a lot of people that share in that responsibility from kids at school that taunt, the teacher that ignores the requests from the parent, the guidance counselor that was too busy dealing with graduation to take any interest, mental health counselors that wouldn't accept Medicaid, psychiatrists that do nothing except write prescriptions, schoolmates that say kill yourself, and people selling guns that will sell them to anybody with cash. It's not just parents.

Some years ago, my niece lost her oldest son to suicide. She was a single mom whose husband decided he had better things to do with his life than raise a family. So he took off leaving her with 3 kids to care for, a mortgage, no job, and no child support. She was able to get and keep a job but here lack of education and experience plus a child at home that needed supervision and care made her dependent on goverment support which consisted of a monthly check that barely paid the rent, food stamps, and of course Medicaid which never even came close to providing her son the kind of help he needed.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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?

Well that is a conserve's interpretation and we know that it is somewhat simplistic

I am for gun control which is different than "Turned over their guns"

Explain why would anyone need an assault rifle when they can have various other weapons with no problems

I am for gun registration is there a problem with registering your gun

You can keep your guns but the wild wild west is long gone.

You need airdropped into the middle of the Everglades at night. No gun for you!

You need to learn how the verb "to be" works.

You need to be right there beside him when he is.

 

[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?

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

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

No, we do NOT do this for cars.
There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars, even though cars are not even a right like self defense is.

Ummmmm yeah actually we do.

Federal or state jurisdiction is not over "cars". It's over use of the roads.

You can own all the cars you want without any gummint intervention at all, if you never use them on the roads.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Except that since people lie, there is no way background checks can possibly prevent any crime.
Not only have all the mass shootings been from people who could legally buy weapons, but anyone can easily get someone else to make the purchase for them, or buy illegally from a drug dealer.
The ONLY thing background checks can do is to intimidate and harm honest people who want to be armed for valid reasons.
For example, a couple breaks up, the woman is threatened, but then is forced to wait a week before being allowed to get a weapon for defense.

And the biggest liars of all are government, like the Iraqi WMD Congress insisted existed.
So you would prefer to give the lairs total control over our lives?
I thought this was supposed to be a democratic republic, where we were supposed to be the only source of all authority?

Well, since lying can not be stopped, we might as well stop asking people to swear to tell the truth in court, shouldn't we?

We do not expect criminals to not lie in court.
Have you have heard of a person convicted of a crime, and then been also charged with perjury for not admitting it?
That would be illegal for the prosecution to do that.
It would be double jeopardy, if nothing else, and a violation of the 5th amendment.

The purpose of having people swear to tell the truth in court is if they are not being prosecuted, so we need to have some means of coercing the truth out of them.

We should prosecute people who commit crimes with guns, not try to intimidate those who just want to buy one.

 

[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?

Well that is a conserve's interpretation and we know that it is somewhat simplistic

I am for gun control which is different than "Turned over their guns"

Explain why would anyone need an assault rifle when they can have various other weapons with no problems

I am for gun registration is there a problem with registering your gun

You can keep your guns but the wild wild west is long gone.

You need airdropped into the middle of the Everglades at night. No gun for you!

You need to learn how the verb "to be" works.

You need to be right there beside him when he is.

See? You're a quick study when you want to be.

 

[Rustic]

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 by that gun is a member of the family.

That simply is not true.
While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.
Suicide is a normal and reasonable choice at some point in everyone's life, as long as physician assisted suicide is not an option.
Second is that millions of serious violent crimes are prevented every year by people using guns, without anyone having to be shot, much less killed.
So the idea firearms pose a significant danger to a household, is just flat out false.
Home invasions are not at all rare.
I have had 10 car break ins, 4 garage break ins, and 2 home invasions already.
Never had to fire a shot, did not try to apprehend anyone, but could not have scared them away unless I was armed.
Every household used to be armed and still should be.
Any household not armed, is being irresponsible.
The average is everyone will need to be armed at least 2.5 times in a lifetime.

While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.

I wonder if that would be your response if it we were talking about your son or daughter

Of course it would be.
If I had screwed up as a parent so badly that my children wanted to die, I would be the last person to then force them to not do what they wanted.
Suicide is caused by many long standing failures by family, health care, society, etc.
You can't fix it by passing laws to put more people in jail.
That is even worse, and deserves punishment.

I think almost any parent who lost their child to suicide would have wished that someone would have tried stop it.

I have had a suicide in my family and frankly, I think your statement is not only cruel but inaccurate. Almost every parent of a child who commits suicide feels responsible, but in most cases there's a lot of people that share in that responsibility from kids at school that taunt, the teacher that ignores the requests from the parent, the guidance counselor that was too busy dealing with graduation to take any interest, mental health counselors that wouldn't accept Medicaid, psychiatrists that do nothing except write prescriptions, schoolmates that say kill yourself, and people selling guns that will sell them to anybody with cash. It's not just parents.

Some years ago, my niece lost her oldest son to suicide. She was a single mom whose husband decided he had better things to do with his life than raise a family. So he took off leaving her with 3 kids to care for, a mortgage, no job, and no child support. She was able to get and keep a job but here lack of education and experience plus a child at home that needed supervision and care made her dependent on goverment support which consisted of a monthly check that barely paid the rent, food stamps, and of course Medicaid which never even came close to providing her son the kind of help he needed.

Lol
That gives you no right to mettle in other peoples private lives, firearm ownership is as private as it gets. So you need to shut the **** up on the subject

 

[Rigby5]

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

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

No, we do NOT do this for cars.
There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars, even though cars are not even a right like self defense is.

Ummmmm yeah actually we do.

Federal or state jurisdiction is not over "cars". It's over use of the roads.

You can own all the cars you want without any gummint intervention at all, if you never use them on the roads.

There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars or roads.
All transportation is under state jurisdiction.
The purpose of the ICC is to prevent any one state from interfering with commerce from another state, not to add impediments.
Again, all traffic laws like speed limits are entirely state.
There is no such thing as a federal speeding or parking ticket.

About the only thing related to roads that is under federal jurisdiction is emissions, because they are not restrained by state borders.

 

[Pogo]

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

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

No, we do NOT do this for cars.
There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars, even though cars are not even a right like self defense is.

Ummmmm yeah actually we do.

Federal or state jurisdiction is not over "cars". It's over use of the roads.

You can own all the cars you want without any gummint intervention at all, if you never use them on the roads.

There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars or roads.

IS there now.

Ever see an "interstate highway"?

How do you think it got built?

 

[Rustic]

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

No, we do NOT do this for cars.
There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars, even though cars are not even a right like self defense is.

Ummmmm yeah actually we do.

Federal or state jurisdiction is not over "cars". It's over use of the roads.

You can own all the cars you want without any gummint intervention at all, if you never use them on the roads.

There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars or roads.

IS there now.

Ever see an "interstate highway"?

How do you think it got built?

Capitalism built it... dumbass

 

[Pogo]

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

No, we do NOT do this for cars.
There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars, even though cars are not even a right like self defense is.

Ummmmm yeah actually we do.

Federal or state jurisdiction is not over "cars". It's over use of the roads.

You can own all the cars you want without any gummint intervention at all, if you never use them on the roads.

There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars or roads.

IS there now.

Ever see an "interstate highway"?

How do you think it got built?

Capitalism built it... dumbass

To paraphrase the OP's last post --- should we require competency tests for posting on a message board?

Apparently yes.

 

[Rustic]

No, we do NOT do this for cars.
There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars, even though cars are not even a right like self defense is.

Ummmmm yeah actually we do.

Federal or state jurisdiction is not over "cars". It's over use of the roads.

You can own all the cars you want without any gummint intervention at all, if you never use them on the roads.

There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars or roads.

IS there now.

Ever see an "interstate highway"?

How do you think it got built?

Capitalism built it... dumbass

To paraphrase the OP's last post --- should we require competency tests for posting on a message board?

Apparently yes.

The federal government can’t build shit, they own nothing, they have no money, and socialism is for ******* pieces of shit....

 

[rightwinger]

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.

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

 

[Pogo]

Ummmmm yeah actually we do.

Federal or state jurisdiction is not over "cars". It's over use of the roads.

You can own all the cars you want without any gummint intervention at all, if you never use them on the roads.

There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars or roads.

IS there now.

Ever see an "interstate highway"?

How do you think it got built?

Capitalism built it... dumbass

To paraphrase the OP's last post --- should we require competency tests for posting on a message board?

Apparently yes.

The federal government can’t build shit, they own nothing, they have no money, and socialism is for ******* pieces of shit....

Oh do go on, please. I dig train wrecks.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

How do wife beaters, crazies, and manic depressives (whatever those are), get into the database?

When you say all sales I assume you are including private sales and private transfers.

So you are just going to ignore "Shall not be infringed."

YES.....ALL PRIVATE SALES

Even to your own family

 

[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

/——/ NO such thing as an assault weapon

Converted military weapon
Large capacity magazine