Guns are to blame--not people.

[JoeB131]

The Constitution contains a list of rights the American people have, one of them the right to bear arms. You don't take that right away from people because they "might" do something other people did in their situation.

1) The Second Amendment is about Militias, not guns.
2) Yes, you absolutely should take away people's guns if they are dangerous.

The best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1) The Second Amendment is about Militias, not guns.
2) Yes, you absolutely should take away people's guns if they are dangerous.

The best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.

1) The supreme court ruled differently.
2) Domestic disputes (such as yelling at somebody, making idol threats) does not necessarily mean a person is dangerous, especially if they have no criminal record of violence. You Communists want to remove constitutional rights from people based on assumption. How anti-American of you.

 

[SavannahMann]

True.

And of course, firearms can be lawfully acquired via face-to-face intrastate tractions between residents of the same state absent the 4473 and a background check.

Again, the issue isn’t the acquisition of firearms, but incidents of domestic violence when firearms are already in the home.

The hysterics screaming about the unprecedented and totally outrageous Second Amendment violation are wailing over what is in reality at most a minuscule move in that direction.

The advocates are concerned about the time between A) the incident that may lead to a conviction that would make the individual unable to own firearms. And B) The conviction that would would cement the illegality of the individual owning firearms.

You are correct. Weapons can be transferred person to person without that form. Yet. The person convicted of even Misdemeanor Domestic Violence would be prohibited. If caught that possession would be another entry in their criminal career. Now they would have a felony conviction. And of course the Conservatives believe in keeping weapons out of the hands of Convicted Felons.

My point was that the people wailing and screaming about the awful Liberals didn’t know what the law already says. And they are pounding their chests like they are the well informed defender of the Second Amendment.

Their ignorance has a cure. An easy cure at that. First calm down. Second. Learn. Then deal with the issue intelligently.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Of course it sounds reasonable to you. It does to all Communists.

So in your world some felons can own guns and some can't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So in your world some felons can own guns and some can't.

Where do you get that from? No felons can own guns but a misdemeanor is not a felony.

 

[Flash]

So in your world some felons can own guns and some can't.

All these filthy ass Negro thugs in these big city shitholes who commit most of the gun crime in this country will get a firearm no matter what their criminal status.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So do we empower women (and in some cases men) to be able to remove your constitutional right to arms when they get pissed at you? If there is a domestic problem, leave the residence.

It's just like my former coworker. I worked with him for several years. He's not the violent type, especially when it comes to women. She blocked his way bitching at him about something, he lightly pushed her out of his way. She hurt herself and to get even with him, called the cops.

Constitutional rights should not be removed from people on a hunch they might do something wrong with them. We are losing our long standing ground of innocent until proven guilty.

The thread premise is a lie – no one claims that people are not responsible for gun crime and violence.

And clearly you don’t understand the topic of the linked article, or you misrepresented the topic in a dishonest effort to support your lie.

The topic of the article is that although someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence cannot obtain a firearm from a licensed dealer pursuant to Federal law, the absence of a state law authorizing protection orders does nothing to prevent an abuser from accessing a firearm he currently owns obtained prior to his conviction; or obtaining and possessing a firearm through a face-to-face intrastate transaction where no background check is required.

The ability to pursue a protection order would help mitigate the above.

Of course, you and others on the dishonest right misrepresent and lie about protection orders – conservatives lie that such orders amount to ‘confiscation’ of firearms, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives lie that protection orders ‘violate’ the Second Amendment when in fact the Supreme Court has never ruled to invalidate protection order laws.

Those subject to protection orders are afforded full and comprehensive due process, their Second and Fourth Amendment rights in no manner ‘violated.’

 

[hadit]

Yes, because not wanting to be shot by a maniac with a gun is just like collectivization of capital... duh.



Uh, guy, if we all have to live with metal detectors, militarized police, active shooter drills, security doors at our workplaces, then we are nowhere near liberty. We are being held hostage to a gun culture that refuses to clean up their act.



That can be said of most of the 16,000 people who murder someone with a gun every year...

Really? Have you a credible source showing that over half (that's most) of gun murders (your word. That means not suicides, not accidental deaths, etc.) are committed by people who have owned the gun they used for, let's say, at least 10 years? If not, you're just making it all up and no one believes you.

 

[hadit]

The Constitution contains a list of rights the American people have, one of them the right to bear arms. You don't take that right away from people because they "might" do something other people did in their situation.

You do if you don't understand that freedom is dangerous and messy and you're afraid of it. You do if you prefer to trade freedom for the illusion of safety. You do if you are an authoritarian who desires to dictate how other people live their lives. You do if your first instinct is NOT to allow the victim to arm and protect herself.

Using his "logic", it would make sense to give every housewife a firearm at her wedding with the understanding that one day years down the road her husband MIGHT flip out and try to kill her.

 

[hadit]

1) The supreme court ruled differently.

Obviously, his law degree is superior to theirs'.

2) Domestic disputes (such as yelling at somebody, making idol threats) does not necessarily mean a person is dangerous, especially if they have no criminal record of violence. You Communists want to remove constitutional rights from people based on assumption. How anti-American of you.

He has knowledge of future crimes. Perhaps it's a personal thing and he knows his internal rage will erupt if he's not constrained.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Really? Have you a credible source showing that over half (that's most) of gun murders (your word. That means not suicides, not accidental deaths, etc.) are committed by people who have owned the gun they used for, let's say, at least 10 years? If not, you're just making it all up and no one believes you.

Have you ever known OCD Joe to tell the truth or give accurate facts?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Obviously, his law degree is superior to theirs'.

He has knowledge of future crimes. Perhaps it's a personal thing and he knows his internal rage will erupt if he's not constrained.

They got that from their Holy Bible, the book 1984. They dream of the day we have Thought Police. Hell, they even conducted a phony impeachment using thought police on President Trump. Nowhere did Trump ever tell Zelinsky that he'd withhold arms from them unless they dig into the Biden's. Yet they impeached him because the Communists "thought" that's what he meant.

 

[Anathema]

So what is the problem, exactly?

The problem, exactly, is that far too often these firearms are not treated properly and the individual who surrendered them gets them back in okie condition, if at all once the protective order is rescinded or they are found not guilty of the charges.

 

[hadit]

They got that from their Holy Bible, the book 1984. They dream of the day we have Thought Police. Hell, they even conducted a phony impeachment using thought police on President Trump. Nowhere did Trump ever tell Zelinsky that he'd withhold arms from them unless they dig into the Biden's. Yet they impeached him because the Communists "thought" that's what he meant.

And they assume with no basis in reality that they are the "righteous" ones, that the Thought Police will agree with them and let them live their lives unimpeded, that only those who disagree with them will be harmed. How foolish and shortsighted they are. Give ANY government that kind of power and it WILL be abused to the detriment of the entire society.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The thread premise is a lie – no one claims that people are not responsible for gun crime and violence.

And clearly you don’t understand the topic of the linked article, or you misrepresented the topic in a dishonest effort to support your lie.

The topic of the article is that although someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence cannot obtain a firearm from a licensed dealer pursuant to Federal law, the absence of a state law authorizing protection orders does nothing to prevent an abuser from accessing a firearm he currently owns obtained prior to his conviction; or obtaining and possessing a firearm through a face-to-face intrastate transaction where no background check is required.

The ability to pursue a protection order would help mitigate the above.

Of course, you and others on the dishonest right misrepresent and lie about protection orders – conservatives lie that such orders amount to ‘confiscation’ of firearms, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives lie that protection orders ‘violate’ the Second Amendment when in fact the Supreme Court has never ruled to invalidate protection order laws.

Those subject to protection orders are afforded full and comprehensive due process, their Second and Fourth Amendment rights in no manner ‘violated.’

Then I think you should research misdemeanor domestic violence. I did. It states the person convicted of the charge must not own or be in possession of a firearm. Not in possession means not having one in your home where you can have access to it.

The premise of my post is that commies are constantly telling us the solution to our gun violence is taking away firearms from all people, as if guns jump out of dresser drawers, safes or gun boxes and go out shooting on their own. The real problem we have in this country is that the offenders are not given a severe enough punishment for being in possession or using a firearm. That means the solution is to greatly up the penalties for doing so.

I've read articles from ex-cops and current police in Chicago where they bust a guy with an illegal gun, and he's back on the street by the end of the day. That's the problem.

 

[skookerasbil]

It's 2022.....nobody cares what the gun grabbers think

Where is there any evidence of concern for gun control outside of internet forums?

The answer is.....nowhere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's 2022.....nobody cares what the gun grabbers think

Where is there any evidence of concern for gun control outside of internet forums?

The answer is.....nowhere.

The answer is everywhere on the left.

Biden renews calls for gun control bill after San Jose shooting

Biden called on Congress to take action on gun control in his first joint address to lawmakers in April, such as banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

www.nbcnews.com

Gun Control News & Videos - ABC News

Follow the latest Gun Control news stories and headlines. Get breaking news alerts when you download the ABC News App and subscribe to Gun Control notifications.

abcnews.go.com

 

[JoeB131]

1) The supreme court ruled differently.
2) Domestic disputes (such as yelling at somebody, making idol threats) does not necessarily mean a person is dangerous, especially if they have no criminal record of violence. You Communists want to remove constitutional rights from people based on assumption. How anti-American of you.

I'm more for practicality. How many spouses have been shot because SOMEONE should have taken a gun away.

My next door neighbor at my old place shot himself. A couple of weeks before, he fired his gun through his patio window and then lied to the cops about it. The cops didn't take his gun and a few weeks later he offed himself. (Oh, incidentally, NOBODY in the building heard the shot, it was only discovered when his wife came home and found him.)

Really? Have you a credible source showing that over half (that's most) of gun murders (your word. That means not suicides, not accidental deaths, etc.) are committed by people who have owned the gun they used for, let's say, at least 10 years? If not, you're just making it all up and no one believes you.

Gee, you seem to want to put a lot of qualifications to get to the point you are making. Why not "People who were shot on Days begining with T. "

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm more for practicality. How many spouses have been shot because SOMEONE should have taken a gun away.

My next door neighbor at my old place shot himself. A couple of weeks before, he fired his gun through his patio window and then lied to the cops about it. The cops didn't take his gun and a few weeks later he offed himself. (Oh, incidentally, NOBODY in the building heard the shot, it was only discovered when his wife came home and found him.)

You don't take guns away from people because YOU think it's practical. What good is any constitutional right if it could be so easily taken away from select people?

Your neighbor would have offed himself one way or another. At least he didn't blow your ass to smitherenes by turning on the oven and blowing the fire out.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't take guns away from people because YOU think it's practical. What good is any constitutional right if it could be so easily taken away from select people?

Your neighbor would have offed himself one way or another. At least he didn't blow your ass to smitherenes by turning on the oven and blowing the fire out.

That would have been difficult, as we had electric stoves in that complex.

We should take guns away from people who are a danger to themselves or others.... that's actually pretty sensible.