CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[BULLDOG]

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

My thought is, if you want to legally own ANY gun, you must undergo the same FBI background check that is currently required to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.

ONCE, after you pass that background check you can buy whatever you like, with checks in place where that right can be suspended for cause of course.

Good for 10 years, no state may have tougher or different standards. No need for a background check every time you buy a gun. No need for a background check on private sales.

If you come in contact with police and have a gun you aren't legally licenses to own, 10 years in prison per gun MANDATORY regardless of why you came in contact with police, and independent of other crimes you committed.

Meaning, no rolling a 10 year sentence for the gun in with a 10 year sentence for rape, and only serving 8 years, Nope, you serve 10 years for the gun PERIOD, and whatever for the additional crime. Just as an example.

That might be a little too extreme. I'm not against guns. I have several myself. I just think reasonable restrictions are a good thing, and there is no need to have one strapped on every time you go out your front door. This isn't the wild west, or a war zone, and there is no reason why we should feel like we are in one every time we go to a department store or a child's dance recital.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

My thought is, if you want to legally own ANY gun, you must undergo the same FBI background check that is currently required to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.

ONCE, after you pass that background check you can buy whatever you like, with checks in place where that right can be suspended for cause of course.

Good for 10 years, no state may have tougher or different standards. No need for a background check every time you buy a gun. No need for a background check on private sales.

If you come in contact with police and have a gun you aren't legally licenses to own, 10 years in prison per gun MANDATORY regardless of why you came in contact with police, and independent of other crimes you committed.

Meaning, no rolling a 10 year sentence for the gun in with a 10 year sentence for rape, and only serving 8 years, Nope, you serve 10 years for the gun PERIOD, and whatever for the additional crime. Just as an example.

That might be a little too extreme. I'm not against guns. I have several myself. I just think reasonable restrictions are a good thing, and there is no need to have one strapped on every time you go out your front door. This isn't the wild west, or a war zone, and there is no reason why we should feel like we are in one every time we go to a department store or a child's dance recital.

why is it extreme? If I cant trust you with an M4, why should I trust you with a .38 revolver?

We have ENTIRELY too many folks who have guns who shouldn't. Let's prevent them from having them and leave everyone else alone as much as possible.

 

[BULLDOG]

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

My thought is, if you want to legally own ANY gun, you must undergo the same FBI background check that is currently required to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.

ONCE, after you pass that background check you can buy whatever you like, with checks in place where that right can be suspended for cause of course.

Good for 10 years, no state may have tougher or different standards. No need for a background check every time you buy a gun. No need for a background check on private sales.

If you come in contact with police and have a gun you aren't legally licenses to own, 10 years in prison per gun MANDATORY regardless of why you came in contact with police, and independent of other crimes you committed.

Meaning, no rolling a 10 year sentence for the gun in with a 10 year sentence for rape, and only serving 8 years, Nope, you serve 10 years for the gun PERIOD, and whatever for the additional crime. Just as an example.

That might be a little too extreme. I'm not against guns. I have several myself. I just think reasonable restrictions are a good thing, and there is no need to have one strapped on every time you go out your front door. This isn't the wild west, or a war zone, and there is no reason why we should feel like we are in one every time we go to a department store or a child's dance recital.

why is it extreme? If I cant trust you with an M4, why should I trust you with a .38 revolver?

We have ENTIRELY too many folks who have guns who shouldn't. Let's prevent them from having them and leave everyone else alone as much as possible.

I just think it's a little too extreme. Fully automatic permits just don't happen if you have even a slight smudge on your record. I think there are lots of people who might have done something stupid as a kid, but are now responsible enough to be a gun owner. That wouldn't bother me either way, but I just think it might be a little too extreme. Without background checks, nobody can tell either way.

 

[2aguy]

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

No.....my point is that we have laws and they work.....if you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail, right now with existing laws......that is the point.........you propose new laws that you guys claim will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....we show they won't then you say we don't want any laws...that is how you guys argue...it is silly, but you keep doing it.

So hung up on your talking point till logic doesn't stand a chance with you. It's stupid to say limiting some access to guns by thugs won't have any effect. Will it stop all of them? No, but some is better than none. Your main excuse is that checks won't stop crooks. Speed limits won't stop people from driving fast, and medical review won't stop bad doctors. This part of your talking point is shown to be ridiculous and invalid.

It doesn't....they get people with clean records to buy their guns or they steal construction equipment and break into gun stores....

Law abiding people...they won't break the law...so your law just makes it harder for them to get a gun....

The laws I support work....if you catch a criminal breaking the law by using a gun to commit a crime, you give them 30 years...that works...

Making people get a license.....doesn't work...criminals cant get a license in the first place. this would only impact law abiding gun owners....

Registering guns....criminals do not have to register illegal guns...because of Haynes v. United States...so only law abiding people would have to register their guns.....

Universal background checks...are defeated the same way current federal background checks are defeated, the criminal uses someone with a clean record to buy the gun or they steal the gun....so again, only law abiding gun owners are affected....

you are wrong....your points have no value....

 

[2aguy]

Traffic laws...they only effect law abiding car owners so why do we need them.

Needing a license to practice medicine laws... they only effect law abiding doctors so why do we need them.

Banking laws... they only effect law abiding bankers so why do we need them.

All the FDA laws...they only effect law abiding food and drug manufacturers so why do we need them


I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

again....this argument is silly....yet you guys keep going to it....

It is against the law to speed...if you do you get punished.

It is against the law to commit murder....and when you do commit murder you can be punished...

That is how laws work..they define behavior that is not allowed, and if you do it what the punishment will be.

It is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime..if you do you can be arrested...see the pattern here.....you get punished for actually committing a crime, not before you commit the crime.

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

No, actually, it doesn't.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

No.....my point is that we have laws and they work.....if you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail, right now with existing laws......that is the point.........you propose new laws that you guys claim will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....we show they won't then you say we don't want any laws...that is how you guys argue...it is silly, but you keep doing it.

So hung up on your talking point till logic doesn't stand a chance with you. It's stupid to say limiting some access to guns by thugs won't have any effect. Will it stop all of them? No, but some is better than none. Your main excuse is that checks won't stop crooks. Speed limits won't stop people from driving fast, and medical review won't stop bad doctors. This part of your talking point is shown to be ridiculous and invalid.

It doesn't....they get people with clean records to buy their guns or they steal construction equipment and break into gun stores....

Law abiding people...they won't break the law...so your law just makes it harder for them to get a gun....

The laws I support work....if you catch a criminal breaking the law by using a gun to commit a crime, you give them 30 years...that works...

Making people get a license.....doesn't work...criminals cant get a license in the first place. this would only impact law abiding gun owners....

Registering guns....criminals do not have to register illegal guns...because of Haynes v. United States...so only law abiding people would have to register their guns.....

Universal background checks...are defeated the same way current federal background checks are defeated, the criminal uses someone with a clean record to buy the gun or they steal the gun....so again, only law abiding gun owners are affected....

you are wrong....your points have no value....

Your silly talking points don't make sense. I know they are important to you, because you have always used them, but they are just wrong. They always have been. Get over it.

 

[2aguy]

No dummy. Driving faster than the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. People do it every day, but most know there are times when driving fast is a terrible idea. If they aren't reckless, and use a little common sense, they probably won't have a wreck. Not everybody uses common sense so the law abiding, responsible drivers who know when to back off have their freedom to chose restricted. Same with doctors. A responsible, law abiding doctor will keep up with the latest research and do all the things needed to best serve his patients and the Hippocratic oath. Nobody needs to tell him what he should do. He knows, and gladly maintains the highest standards. All the review and licensing requirements are just a nuisance to him. None of that will stop a bad doctor from being a bad doctor. That makes at least as much sense as your silly repetitious crap.

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

My thought is, if you want to legally own ANY gun, you must undergo the same FBI background check that is currently required to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.

ONCE, after you pass that background check you can buy whatever you like, with checks in place where that right can be suspended for cause of course.

Good for 10 years, no state may have tougher or different standards. No need for a background check every time you buy a gun. No need for a background check on private sales.

If you come in contact with police and have a gun you aren't legally licenses to own, 10 years in prison per gun MANDATORY regardless of why you came in contact with police, and independent of other crimes you committed.

Meaning, no rolling a 10 year sentence for the gun in with a 10 year sentence for rape, and only serving 8 years, Nope, you serve 10 years for the gun PERIOD, and whatever for the additional crime. Just as an example.

And that is foolish. A waste of time, money and you are putting law abiding people in legal jeopardy for absolutely no reason......

If someone has committed no crime...and he has a gun, and is stopped by police,they will check his background with name and date of birth.....if he has no record, there is no arrest....you do not need to surrender more power to the feds to do this, we can do it already.

If a felon is caught carrying a gun...you can already arrest him without your federal background check permission slip. We can already do this.

There is no reason for what you propose....and on top of that....who pays for it...? How do the poor afford to pay for this background check....and what happens when a democrat gets into office and reduces access to these magical permits of yours....this is how they keep people from owning and carrying guns in New York and New Jersey and you want to make it the same way for all of the states.

 

[2aguy]

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

No.....my point is that we have laws and they work.....if you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail, right now with existing laws......that is the point.........you propose new laws that you guys claim will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....we show they won't then you say we don't want any laws...that is how you guys argue...it is silly, but you keep doing it.

So hung up on your talking point till logic doesn't stand a chance with you. It's stupid to say limiting some access to guns by thugs won't have any effect. Will it stop all of them? No, but some is better than none. Your main excuse is that checks won't stop crooks. Speed limits won't stop people from driving fast, and medical review won't stop bad doctors. This part of your talking point is shown to be ridiculous and invalid.

It doesn't....they get people with clean records to buy their guns or they steal construction equipment and break into gun stores....

Law abiding people...they won't break the law...so your law just makes it harder for them to get a gun....

The laws I support work....if you catch a criminal breaking the law by using a gun to commit a crime, you give them 30 years...that works...

Making people get a license.....doesn't work...criminals cant get a license in the first place. this would only impact law abiding gun owners....

Registering guns....criminals do not have to register illegal guns...because of Haynes v. United States...so only law abiding people would have to register their guns.....

Universal background checks...are defeated the same way current federal background checks are defeated, the criminal uses someone with a clean record to buy the gun or they steal the gun....so again, only law abiding gun owners are affected....

you are wrong....your points have no value....

Your silly talking points don't make sense. I know they are important to you, because you have always used them, but they are just wrong. They always have been. Get over it.

Wow.....you didn't show how they are wrong....like to try again?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

My thought is, if you want to legally own ANY gun, you must undergo the same FBI background check that is currently required to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.

ONCE, after you pass that background check you can buy whatever you like, with checks in place where that right can be suspended for cause of course.

Good for 10 years, no state may have tougher or different standards. No need for a background check every time you buy a gun. No need for a background check on private sales.

If you come in contact with police and have a gun you aren't legally licenses to own, 10 years in prison per gun MANDATORY regardless of why you came in contact with police, and independent of other crimes you committed.

Meaning, no rolling a 10 year sentence for the gun in with a 10 year sentence for rape, and only serving 8 years, Nope, you serve 10 years for the gun PERIOD, and whatever for the additional crime. Just as an example.

And that is foolish. A waste of time, money and you are putting law abiding people in legal jeopardy for absolutely no reason......

If someone has committed no crime...and he has a gun, and is stopped by police,they will check his background with name and date of birth.....if he has no record, there is no arrest....you do not need to surrender more power to the feds to do this, we can do it already.

If a felon is caught carrying a gun...you can already arrest him without your federal background check permission slip. We can already do this.

There is no reason for what you propose....and on top of that....who pays for it...? How do the poor afford to pay for this background check....and what happens when a democrat gets into office and reduces access to these magical permits of yours....this is how they keep people from owning and carrying guns in New York and New Jersey and you want to make it the same way for all of the states.

Stop pretending that "poor gun owners" are your concern. I'm talking about a once every 10 years background check, let the governmetn pay for it.

Complaint denied.

 

[2aguy]

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

My thought is, if you want to legally own ANY gun, you must undergo the same FBI background check that is currently required to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.

ONCE, after you pass that background check you can buy whatever you like, with checks in place where that right can be suspended for cause of course.

Good for 10 years, no state may have tougher or different standards. No need for a background check every time you buy a gun. No need for a background check on private sales.

If you come in contact with police and have a gun you aren't legally licenses to own, 10 years in prison per gun MANDATORY regardless of why you came in contact with police, and independent of other crimes you committed.

Meaning, no rolling a 10 year sentence for the gun in with a 10 year sentence for rape, and only serving 8 years, Nope, you serve 10 years for the gun PERIOD, and whatever for the additional crime. Just as an example.

That might be a little too extreme. I'm not against guns. I have several myself. I just think reasonable restrictions are a good thing, and there is no need to have one strapped on every time you go out your front door. This isn't the wild west, or a war zone, and there is no reason why we should feel like we are in one every time we go to a department store or a child's dance recital.

why is it extreme? If I cant trust you with an M4, why should I trust you with a .38 revolver?

We have ENTIRELY too many folks who have guns who shouldn't. Let's prevent them from having them and leave everyone else alone as much as possible.

The stats don't show this........the people who are using guns go murder people......90% of them could not pass your FBI background check to begin with....and they still are the ones shooting people...

All we need to do is put long prison sentences on gun crimes...that is how you dry up gun violence...and you can do that right now, without surrendering more power to the feds......who will use your system to deny permits......

 

[2aguy]

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

My thought is, if you want to legally own ANY gun, you must undergo the same FBI background check that is currently required to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.

ONCE, after you pass that background check you can buy whatever you like, with checks in place where that right can be suspended for cause of course.

Good for 10 years, no state may have tougher or different standards. No need for a background check every time you buy a gun. No need for a background check on private sales.

If you come in contact with police and have a gun you aren't legally licenses to own, 10 years in prison per gun MANDATORY regardless of why you came in contact with police, and independent of other crimes you committed.

Meaning, no rolling a 10 year sentence for the gun in with a 10 year sentence for rape, and only serving 8 years, Nope, you serve 10 years for the gun PERIOD, and whatever for the additional crime. Just as an example.

And that is foolish. A waste of time, money and you are putting law abiding people in legal jeopardy for absolutely no reason......

If someone has committed no crime...and he has a gun, and is stopped by police,they will check his background with name and date of birth.....if he has no record, there is no arrest....you do not need to surrender more power to the feds to do this, we can do it already.

If a felon is caught carrying a gun...you can already arrest him without your federal background check permission slip. We can already do this.

There is no reason for what you propose....and on top of that....who pays for it...? How do the poor afford to pay for this background check....and what happens when a democrat gets into office and reduces access to these magical permits of yours....this is how they keep people from owning and carrying guns in New York and New Jersey and you want to make it the same way for all of the states.

Stop pretending that "poor gun owners" are your concern. I'm talking about a once every 10 years background check, let the governmetn pay for it.

Complaint denied.

The poor are my concern.....they need guns more than anyone since the police are standing down.......and again....what in your system prevents Chucky shumer from cutting funding for these background checks, or the anti gun FBI director lowering the priority for putting these background checks through........

you trust the government too much ....

 

[2aguy]

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

No.....my point is that we have laws and they work.....if you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail, right now with existing laws......that is the point.........you propose new laws that you guys claim will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....we show they won't then you say we don't want any laws...that is how you guys argue...it is silly, but you keep doing it.

So hung up on your talking point till logic doesn't stand a chance with you. It's stupid to say limiting some access to guns by thugs won't have any effect. Will it stop all of them? No, but some is better than none. Your main excuse is that checks won't stop crooks. Speed limits won't stop people from driving fast, and medical review won't stop bad doctors. This part of your talking point is shown to be ridiculous and invalid.

It doesn't....they get people with clean records to buy their guns or they steal construction equipment and break into gun stores....

Law abiding people...they won't break the law...so your law just makes it harder for them to get a gun....

The laws I support work....if you catch a criminal breaking the law by using a gun to commit a crime, you give them 30 years...that works...

Making people get a license.....doesn't work...criminals cant get a license in the first place. this would only impact law abiding gun owners....

Registering guns....criminals do not have to register illegal guns...because of Haynes v. United States...so only law abiding people would have to register their guns.....

Universal background checks...are defeated the same way current federal background checks are defeated, the criminal uses someone with a clean record to buy the gun or they steal the gun....so again, only law abiding gun owners are affected....

you are wrong....your points have no value....

Your silly talking points don't make sense. I know they are important to you, because you have always used them, but they are just wrong. They always have been. Get over it.

Okay ....show me how I am wrong on each one.....

Licensing gun owners...how am I wrong?

Gun registration...how am I wrong? Please read Haynes v. United States.....

Universal Background checks....how do they work any better than current, mandatory federal background checks?

 

[BULLDOG]

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

My thought is, if you want to legally own ANY gun, you must undergo the same FBI background check that is currently required to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.

ONCE, after you pass that background check you can buy whatever you like, with checks in place where that right can be suspended for cause of course.

Good for 10 years, no state may have tougher or different standards. No need for a background check every time you buy a gun. No need for a background check on private sales.

If you come in contact with police and have a gun you aren't legally licenses to own, 10 years in prison per gun MANDATORY regardless of why you came in contact with police, and independent of other crimes you committed.

Meaning, no rolling a 10 year sentence for the gun in with a 10 year sentence for rape, and only serving 8 years, Nope, you serve 10 years for the gun PERIOD, and whatever for the additional crime. Just as an example.

And that is foolish. A waste of time, money and you are putting law abiding people in legal jeopardy for absolutely no reason......

If someone has committed no crime...and he has a gun, and is stopped by police,they will check his background with name and date of birth.....if he has no record, there is no arrest....you do not need to surrender more power to the feds to do this, we can do it already.

If a felon is caught carrying a gun...you can already arrest him without your federal background check permission slip. We can already do this.

There is no reason for what you propose....and on top of that....who pays for it...? How do the poor afford to pay for this background check....and what happens when a democrat gets into office and reduces access to these magical permits of yours....this is how they keep people from owning and carrying guns in New York and New Jersey and you want to make it the same way for all of the states.

hy don't you just say "because I don't want to do anything to be agreeable" we both know that is your only reason. Your reasoning doesn't hold up and you know it.

 

[BULLDOG]

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

No.....my point is that we have laws and they work.....if you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail, right now with existing laws......that is the point.........you propose new laws that you guys claim will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....we show they won't then you say we don't want any laws...that is how you guys argue...it is silly, but you keep doing it.

So hung up on your talking point till logic doesn't stand a chance with you. It's stupid to say limiting some access to guns by thugs won't have any effect. Will it stop all of them? No, but some is better than none. Your main excuse is that checks won't stop crooks. Speed limits won't stop people from driving fast, and medical review won't stop bad doctors. This part of your talking point is shown to be ridiculous and invalid.

It doesn't....they get people with clean records to buy their guns or they steal construction equipment and break into gun stores....

Law abiding people...they won't break the law...so your law just makes it harder for them to get a gun....

The laws I support work....if you catch a criminal breaking the law by using a gun to commit a crime, you give them 30 years...that works...

Making people get a license.....doesn't work...criminals cant get a license in the first place. this would only impact law abiding gun owners....

Registering guns....criminals do not have to register illegal guns...because of Haynes v. United States...so only law abiding people would have to register their guns.....

Universal background checks...are defeated the same way current federal background checks are defeated, the criminal uses someone with a clean record to buy the gun or they steal the gun....so again, only law abiding gun owners are affected....

you are wrong....your points have no value....

Your silly talking points don't make sense. I know they are important to you, because you have always used them, but they are just wrong. They always have been. Get over it.

Okay ....show me how I am wrong on each one.....

Licensing gun owners...how am I wrong?

Gun registration...how am I wrong? Please read Haynes v. United States.....

Universal Background checks....how do they work any better than current, mandatory federal background checks?

Current background checks aren't mandatory. I can legally buy a truck load of guns today without even giving my name.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

No law that requires a license for anything stops a person from engaging in that activity without the necessary licenses.

How often do you ask a new doctor to see his current license?
How often to you ask an electrician to see his current license?
How often do you ask the guy giving you a ride to se his current driving license?

Anyone of these people could be unlicensed and you wouldn't know it

So no laws do not effect the behaviors of any people who have no intention of following them

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nope...now you are just lying....I have never said that we shouldn't have laws because no one obeys them......you guys say you want laws, and every single law you propose will only effect law abiding people...then, when we point this out, you accuse us of saying that we don't want any laws....that is how that goes...

We have all the laws we need to arrest and lock up gun criminals.......the new laws you want....don't work....they only make it harder and more legally risky for normal gun owners....

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

You're as wrong as he is. A license to own a gun is NOTHING like a poll tax.

If it is exorbitantly expensive as to stop people from obtaining one thereby restricting one's ability to exercise a legal right it is exactly like a poll tax

 

[Skull Pilot]

A person who speeds is not a law abiding. Not sure why you would even suggest that is the case, and yes studies have PROVEN conclusively that speeding increases the likelihood of an accident.

The discussion is about whether laws stop anybody from bad behavior. Gun nuts say gun laws are useless because people still use guns for crime. Using that logic, is it reasonable to have any laws, and why?

Selling guns without a background check increases the likelihood that it will be used in a crime.

I understand that and I actually favor stricter background checks to buy guns.

I don't know about stricter, but it would be nice if they were required.

My thought is, if you want to legally own ANY gun, you must undergo the same FBI background check that is currently required to be able to buy a fully automatic weapon.

ONCE, after you pass that background check you can buy whatever you like, with checks in place where that right can be suspended for cause of course.

Good for 10 years, no state may have tougher or different standards. No need for a background check every time you buy a gun. No need for a background check on private sales.

If you come in contact with police and have a gun you aren't legally licenses to own, 10 years in prison per gun MANDATORY regardless of why you came in contact with police, and independent of other crimes you committed.

Meaning, no rolling a 10 year sentence for the gun in with a 10 year sentence for rape, and only serving 8 years, Nope, you serve 10 years for the gun PERIOD, and whatever for the additional crime. Just as an example.

That might be a little too extreme. I'm not against guns. I have several myself. I just think reasonable restrictions are a good thing, and there is no need to have one strapped on every time you go out your front door. This isn't the wild west, or a war zone, and there is no reason why we should feel like we are in one every time we go to a department store or a child's dance recital.

We already have reasonable restrictions. How many more do you want and how will they stop criminals?

And if a person is carrying concealed you wouldn't know it and you have no right to tell anyone what they "need" to do

 

[BULLDOG]

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

No law that requires a license for anything stops a person from engaging in that activity without the necessary licenses.

How often do you ask a new doctor to see his current license?
How often to you ask an electrician to see his current license?
How often do you ask the guy giving you a ride to se his current driving license?

Anyone of these people could be unlicensed and you wouldn't know it

So no laws do not effect the behaviors of any people who have no intention of following them

So using the same logic that gun nuts use for background checks, are you going to say those licenses are useless like they claim background checks are?

 

[BULLDOG]

So you admit that medical licensing boards just effect the legitimate doctors and have no effect on those who would not adhere to the highest standards.

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

You're as wrong as he is. A license to own a gun is NOTHING like a poll tax.

If it is exorbitantly expensive as to stop people from obtaining one thereby restricting one's ability to exercise a legal right it is exactly like a poll tax

If you knew what a poll tax was you wouldn't say something so silly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nope......a medical license is not a Right.....it is not protected from infringement by the government.......any Tax, Fee, or test that you want to pass on gun ownership makes it harder to exercise the Right to self defense.....just like when the democrats didn't want their former black slaves to vote...they passed Poll Taxes, and Literacy tests to make it impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote...

now...it is a different time...but the same tactic...you want to impose Fees, and Tests on the Right to bear arms..which will make it harder for the poor and minorities to exercise that Right.....

Sorry.....not going to happen if we can stop it....you guys didn't want blacks to vote, and we stopped you...we will do our best to stop you this time too....

So you want to change the subject? We aren't discussing the aspects of rights. We are talking about whether any law can stop a bad guy. Try to keep up.

No...I am addressing your point about licensing Doctors......vs. owning and carrying a gun...they are not the same issue. And they are different because one is not a Right and the other is....since gun ownership is a Right, you can't require a license....the fee and the test are no different than the Poll TAx and the Literacy test you would have wanted for blacks to vote.

No We are talking about whether laws effect bad behavior. You're the one who said gun laws were useless because they don't stop bad behavior. If someone intends to do bad, laws don't stop them. That was your claim, and your excuse why there shouldn't be any more gun laws. That holds true with every law ever written. Using your logic,all laws are useless.

No law that requires a license for anything stops a person from engaging in that activity without the necessary licenses.

How often do you ask a new doctor to see his current license?
How often to you ask an electrician to see his current license?
How often do you ask the guy giving you a ride to se his current driving license?

Anyone of these people could be unlicensed and you wouldn't know it

So no laws do not effect the behaviors of any people who have no intention of following them

So using the same logic that gun nuts use for background checks, are you going to say those licenses are useless like they claim background checks are?

I never claimed background checks are useless.
I don't mind them as I do not want criminals buying guns legally. But I am not naive enough to think that a background check will stop a criminal from obtaining a gun illegally.

But if I pass every background check asked of me and I have then why shouldn't I be able to buy an AR 15 or a so called high capacity magazine?