Hmmm....Mexico has extreme gun control, but 30% of guns sold to Mexican government go missing....wanna guess who gets them?

[AZrailwhale]

I can't accept your evidence in the face of more reliable evidence.

Universal Background Checks

Without universal background checks, millions of guns end up in the hands of individuals at an elevated risk of committing violence.

giffords.org

And the reference to 45% appears to suggest that we up the ante from 22% to something much larger.

Are we now going to have to frame the word 'illegal' in the sense of that which is mentioned in that link?
I have to suggest that legality becomes a moot point in light of the number or guns that are sold with no background checks.

(see my question to 2A on the confiscation of guns from those who have committed no crime with their illegally procured guns)

You do realize that the "Giffords Center" is an activist anti-gun group. The article is propaganda, not actual facts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You do realize that the "Giffords Center" is an activist anti-gun group. The article is propaganda, not actual facts.

On a -good- day, it's propaganda.
On a typical day,k its outright lies:

Universal background checks are essential to close deadly loopholes in our laws
^^^
An outright lie

a dangerous and deadly loophole in federal gun laws still exempts unlicensed sellers from having to perform any background check whatsoever before selling a firearm.
^^^
An outright lie

Because of this loophole,
^^^
An outright lie

Since the federal background check requirement was adopted in 1994, over 3 million people legally prohibited from possessing a gun have been stopped from purchasing a gun or denied a permit to purchase.
^^^
An outright lie

Ad nauseam

 

[AZrailwhale]

I can't accept your evidence in the face of more reliable evidence.

Universal Background Checks

Without universal background checks, millions of guns end up in the hands of individuals at an elevated risk of committing violence.

giffords.org

And the reference to 45% appears to suggest that we up the ante from 22% to something much larger.

Are we now going to have to frame the word 'illegal' in the sense of that which is mentioned in that link?
I have to suggest that legality becomes a moot point in light of the number or guns that are sold with no background checks.

(see my question to 2A on the confiscation of guns from those who have committed no crime with their illegally procured guns)

Just one obvious lie is that "online sales" avoid background checks. Online gun sales have to be delivered to a licensed gun dealer who is required to run a Federal Background check before releasing the gun to the purchaser.

 

[AZrailwhale]

And so now do you understand why I refuse to discuss anything with you when you deliberately misrepresent my position? You've somehow been able to turn 'background checks' into police stopping people walking down the street, etc., etc.

You're the one saying that the government should confiscate what you are calling "illegal guns". The only way to do that is "stop and frisk" or universal home and business searches.

 

[Donald H]

You're the one saying that the government should confiscate what you are calling "illegal guns". The only way to do that is "stop and frisk" or universal home and business searches.

No, you too are misrepresenting what I've said. Stop it or you'll be treated the same way I treat shooter.

 

[Donald H]

I already told you I am against it too. It is an attempt to get registration so that eventually the Government can confiscate all legal firearms. And you claiming that makes us against background checks is a lie we support the current laws.

I'm good with you saying that you are against background checks. That's coming some distance from where we started.

The notion that the government is going to confiscate all legal firearms is pure nonsense, and below a level on which I will carry on a conversation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm good with you saying that you are against background checks. That's coming some distance from where we started.

The notion that the government is going to confiscate all legal firearms is pure nonsense, and below a level on which I will carry on a conversation.

Several PROMINENT Democrats have said that is the goal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, you too are misrepresenting what I've said. Stop it or you'll be treated the same way I treat shooter.

You'll, again, tuck tail and run away from an argument you know you can't support, much less win?
How -dare- you threaten him like that!?!?!?!?!

 

[Abatis]

A case could be made against a congressman/woman who has accepted bribe money from the gun lobbyists or gun manufacturers.

So you can't actually make the case that, "government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns".

Do you really expect 2aguy to "understand" a figment of your imagination; a condition you feel he needs to understand, but you can not explain how it exists?

From a Canadian POV, I say citizens do have that right.

'Safety' is among the criteria used to judge a country's quality of life.

And now you want to offer more Canauk conjecture as a reply focused on American law?

I make this easy for you, NO, there is no enforceable right to be "safe" and especially to "feel safe" in law in the USA.

No government agents (e.g., police) are duty bound to protect a person from harm even if they are aware of an imminent threat, nor can they be sued for not protecting a person from harm, even if assurances were made that protection service would be provided . . .

The only exception is when government action has eliminated a person's ability to act in their own self defense (incarceration or other custodial condition).

 

[fncceo]

30% of those guns go missing....

I'm guessing that is a VERY low-ball estimate.

 

[Donald H]

So you can't actually make the case that, "government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns".

I thought that was already agreed upon by the progunners and 2A?
And the rest of your message? I don't get your point?

 

[Abatis]

I thought that was already agreed upon by the progunners and 2A?

You thought? Nothing is clear about what you think. You still have not fleshed out what "responsible" means in the context of you chastising a well versed gun rights supporter, that, "It's enough for now that you understand that government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns."

That seemed arrogantly snide and an attempt to settle as fact something you never attempted to establish, and as a matter of law, never could. Which is why I asked you, "How? Like held legally responsible if someone is hurt or killed with a gun?"

I hoped for at least a feeble attempt to salvage your point (whatever it was) but of course you failed and continue to.

And the rest of your message? I don't get your point?

Well, if you remember, the post asking you about your "government is responsible" statement had two parts, those questions were trying to give you different opportunities to explain what you meant by "responsible". The second part simply asked, "Does any citizen have a right to be safe or feel safe?"

To me, when someone says a person or entity is "responsible" for something, that means they stand some degree of accountability or even legal exposure for failing to fulfill or provide that "responsibility". In the gun rights vs. gun control debate, an often stated anti-gunner argument is, "your right to own a gun does not outweigh my right to be safe"; I was just trying to see if you were an adherent to that flawed premise.

Of course your answer was profoundly lacking and I took the opportunity to explain the finer points of the law on that question to you.

Oh well, it could have been fun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You thought? Nothing is clear about what you think. You still have not fleshed out what "responsible" means in the context of you chastising a well versed gun rights supporter, that, "It's enough for now that you understand that government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns."

That's because he's only here to post unsupportable nonsense.
He has no intention, or capacity, to defend it, and he'll run away from you the moment its clear you expect him to.
He's a troll.
Don;t feed him.

 

[Donald H]

"It's enough for now that you understand that government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns."

If government can't stop the slaughter, who can?

Like held legally responsible if someone is hurt or killed with a gun?"

I don't recall saying that government can be held legally responsible if somebody is killed by gun.

I hoped for at least a feeble attempt to salvage your point (whatever it was) but of course you failed and continue to.

I simply said that government must be held responsible for stopping the slaughter .......................etc.

Well, if you remember, the post asking you about your "government is responsible" statement had two parts, those questions were trying to give you different opportunities to explain what you meant by "responsible". The second part simply asked, "Does any citizen have a right to be safe or feel safe?"

Part one is apparently where I said that government should/is responsible for stopping the gun slaughter. Responsible could mean 'held accountable' but that doesn't mean 'for deaths by bun, it means, 'held accountable' for stopping the slaughter.

Part two should be clear to everyone. Without part two you can't have life, liberty, and the pursuit, blah, blah.

I hope I've clarified my position. If not then let me know again.

And a question for you: Who do you think is responsible for stopping the gun slaughter? Assuming that you think it should be stopped?

 

[2aguy]

If government can't stop the slaughter, who can?

I don't recall saying that government can be held legally responsible if somebody is killed by gun.

I simply said that government must be held responsible for stopping the slaughter .......................etc.

Part one is apparently where I said that government should/is responsible for stopping the gun slaughter. Responsible could mean 'held accountable' but that doesn't mean 'for deaths by bun, it means, 'held accountable' for stopping the slaughter.

Part two should be clear to everyone. Without part two you can't have life, liberty, and the pursuit, blah, blah.

I hope I've clarified my position. If not then let me know again.

And a question for you: Who do you think is responsible for stopping the gun slaughter? Assuming that you think it should be stopped?

Yes......the government, the democrat party in the cities with the worst gun crime.....must stop releasing violent gun offenders over and over again.....they keep letting the worst of the worst out of jail and prison......

Can you explain why they keep releasing gun offenders with multiple felony convictions over and over again?

 

[Donald H]

Can you explain why they keep releasing gun offenders with multiple felony convictions over and over again?

Yes, with several reasons.
First, those parolled are always going to be a gamble. But the gamble is closely weighed against the risk of the subject reoffending. Typically the reoffending risk is higher in America but it's still weighing out on the positive side. So instead of more 'is not, is nots', a look at the statistical evidence is called for. And if America's corrupted penal system of punishment instead of rehabilitation can't bear the parole system then it may need to turn to more death sentences or perhaps Gulags in northern Alaska? I strongly suggest that adjustments are needed befor the baby is thrown out with the bath water. And firstly, rehabilitation be considered.

Second, reform of the system that purposely upholds gun violence on the pretense of gun owners having a right to use their guns in any way they see fit on a trial basis. Those bad guys are all good guys until they exercise their second amendment right.

And third, perhaps American must look outward to other countries where the gun violence is much less than in America, but gun owners are perfectly happy with their gun rights. Thereby causing those gun owners to find the level of murder of school children, within acceptable levels as weighed against their freedom to own and use their guns.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Democrats release firearm offenders on bail even when they have committed numerous offenses, they give them no jail time or such a short time as to be a joke. They drop firearm charges or plead them away. As for good guys none of the offenders are good guys,

 

[Donald H]

Democrats release firearm offenders on bail even when they have committed numerous offenses,

Your comments are deserving of a closer look at parolees that could fit your suggestions.
If there are indeed instances of that which you suggest, then the system probably needs some adjustments. Can you provide an example of two of the more egregious examples? Keeping in mind of course that all parole systems have some instances of failure.

Weigh it against the need to incarcerate more Americans in a world record setting prison system that is bulging at the seams and is costing the taxpayers unacceptable expense.

they give them no jail time or such a short time as to be a joke.

Anecdotal evidence.

They drop firearm charges or plead them away. As for good guys none of the offenders are good guys,

Would you advocate abandoning the status quo of pleading to lesser crimes? Can you then provide some specifics?

 

[Abatis]

If government can't stop the slaughter, who can?

I understand that government has been granted certain powers in the public safety sphere. That doesn't mean it can exercise any power you can conjure that you feel has some relationship to public safety.

I would say that those powers are concentrated on the slaughterer, rather than blanket powers to restrain the actions of the the general public at large.

I don't recall saying that government can be held legally responsible if somebody is killed by gun.

I simply said that government must be held responsible for stopping the slaughter .......................etc.

So, "responsible" but not "legally responsible" . . .

Now we are back to you failing to develop at all what you believe "responsible" means in the context of, "stopping the slaughter with guns", other than whatever it is, 2aguy must understand it. I was questioning your assignment of that definitiveness to 2aguy about something that I predicted you don't understand yourself.

Part one is apparently where I said that government should/is responsible for stopping the gun slaughter. Responsible could mean 'held accountable' but that doesn't mean 'for deaths by bun, it means, 'held accountable' for stopping the slaughter.

Held accountable but without legal recoure for failing in its responsibility? Are you going to send someone to bed without dinner?

Part two should be clear to everyone. Without part two you can't have life, liberty, and the pursuit, blah, blah.

In law there is no recourse to hold anyone in government accountable / responsible for failing to "stop the slaughter with guns". The duty or obligation is owed to society at large, not to any particular citizen. That's why governments have immunized themselves from any legal actions for failing to keep any citizen safe.

In my understanding, the right to life is the right to defend your life, an immunity from government prosecuting you for harming another person, even homicide in justified self defense.

I hope I've clarified my position. If not then let me know again.

You have not clarified anything but proving you did not understand what you were demanding 2aguy understand.

And a question for you: Who do you think is responsible for stopping the gun slaughter? Assuming that you think it should be stopped?

Government is empowered with a myriad of legal tools to protect society from slaughterers. I believe protecting society from slaughterers is an obligation we citizens have placed on government, to apply the laws prohibiting slaughtering people as the bicameral legislature passed them and the executive signed.

For those empowered with enforcing law, it is their duty, their responsibility to execute the powers of their office to that effect, to fairly and effectively use those powers against those who have broken the laws in the criminal code. It is not in their power to expand or obviate the criminal code, deciding which laws are really worth enforcing or worse, inventing crimes not in the code . . . Which means their powers do not extend to excusing criminals or harassing citizens who have not broken laws, nor is it in their power to implement political or social policy.

So, do I believe it is the responsibility of government to stop slaughterers? Damn right!

Difference between you and me is I understand how the law actually works and I want to see the law used.

 

[Donald H]

I said:

I don't recall saying that government can be held legally responsible if somebody is killed by gun.

I simply said that government must be held responsible for stopping the slaughter .......................etc.[/quote}

Are you so dismally ingorant that you actually don't understand the difference in the two?

Pay close attention now: If somebody get killed by a gungoon, government can't be held legally responsible.

and

Government must be held responsible for enacting laws to stop the slaugher by guns.

Now does that sound like the two mean the same thing? Put down the guns and pick up a second grade elementary school primer. Do not take your guns to the school!