Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[dannyboys]

Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models. They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here. Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.

The main location for the VAST majority of 'gun violence' is in the inner cities. Look who are committing endemic violence on their own race.
Afraid to say the word 'Blacks'?
You could remove by force every illegal hand gun in every inner city and the violent crime rate wouldn't budge.
Everyone knows this fact.

 

[Pogo]

So you refuse to actually answer the question? Why participate in the thread then?

I answered it weeks ago, maybe months, however long this thread's been around. Go back fifty or sixty pages if it's worth your time. I've addressed that question for over a year in threads all over this site. It's the issue I came to this site for. But liars don't want to hear that; they want to plug in their own content. So why the **** should I enable that?

Don't buy the bullshit that I "refuse" to answer anything. You're taking the word of a known liar. She just won't acknowledge anything that doesn't match what she wants to hear. That's juvenile bullshit.

Actually I went back at the time and pointed out all the contradictory statements to you. You couldn't explain them. So I said just clarify your position, you couldn't do that.

But hey, you're the guy who hands me my ass by telling me you didn't call me female or a girl when you started referring to me as "she." LOL. Oh, and calling me "she" isn't an insult to women.

You're just a chicken shit coward who wants to make snarky statements and then run away and hide from manning up to explaining your position and then you curse and bluster when you get called on it.

Once again, if any such thing existed you could quote it. Once again, you can't, because you're a liar.

Actually calling you "she" prolly is an insult to women, just as anything I compared a proven liar to would be an insult to that group. But that's your doing, not mine. As for you personally, I'm just going by your avatar. Maybe you're confused about yourself. See a doctor and ask for a road map. Maybe look over their shoulder at the chart where it says "gender". Then again we shouldn't be surprised if you're a male representing himself as a female as some kind of pissant protection -- you lie about everything else, why not that too?

This incessant yowling every time anyone gives an answer you don't like is tedious. Now that I embarrassed you in the current thread you run back here as if it's some kind of shelter against reality. Fact is I've laid out my positions for as long as I've been at this site -- it was the issue that brought me here, that point to make. And as long as this old thread has been around you've been burying your head in the sand and pretending not to read it, which just makes you look stupid.

Have at it.

And bring those phantom quotes in so we can all have another laugh. Pissant.

 

[dannyboys]

Stop selling guns to criminals.

Ya tell that to the criminals who are selling the guns. I'm sure they give a sweet flying **** what you tell them.
You idiot LIBs are never going to get it through your heads that there is a demand by inner city Blacks for illegal hand guns. (They aren't sentient enough to work a long gun). That demand is being filled by other criminals.
The only people buying legal hand guns are Whites who want them for self protection against Blacks mainly.
Even our maggot filled Trayvon was able to get an illegal hand gun.
I'll never forget sitting in the back yard of a typical suburban White couple in their early thirties. A cream colored brand new Escalade full of 'young Black men' kept slowly driving down their alley and making obscene comments to the young woman.
She just smiled and patted the lounge pillow she was sitting on and said under her breath: "Come get some mother fuckers". She had a 9MM tucked under it.

 

[kaz]

I answered it weeks ago, maybe months, however long this thread's been around. Go back fifty or sixty pages if it's worth your time. I've addressed that question for over a year in threads all over this site. It's the issue I came to this site for. But liars don't want to hear that; they want to plug in their own content. So why the **** should I enable that?

Don't buy the bullshit that I "refuse" to answer anything. You're taking the word of a known liar. She just won't acknowledge anything that doesn't match what she wants to hear. That's juvenile bullshit.

Actually I went back at the time and pointed out all the contradictory statements to you. You couldn't explain them. So I said just clarify your position, you couldn't do that.

But hey, you're the guy who hands me my ass by telling me you didn't call me female or a girl when you started referring to me as "she." LOL. Oh, and calling me "she" isn't an insult to women.

You're just a chicken shit coward who wants to make snarky statements and then run away and hide from manning up to explaining your position and then you curse and bluster when you get called on it.

Once again, if any such thing existed you could quote it. Once again, you can't, because you're a liar.

Actually calling you "she" prolly is an insult to women, just as anything I compared a proven liar to would be an insult to that group. But that's your doing, not mine. As for you personally, I'm just going by your avatar. Maybe you're confused about yourself. See a doctor and ask for a road map. Maybe look over their shoulder at the chart where it says "gender". Then again we shouldn't be surprised if you're a male representing himself as a female as some kind of pissant protection -- you lie about everything else, why not that too?

This incessant yowling every time anyone gives an answer you don't like is tedious. Now that I embarrassed you in the current thread you run back here as if it's some kind of shelter against reality. Fact is I've laid out my positions for as long as I've been at this site -- it was the issue that brought me here, that point to make. And as long as this old thread has been around you've been burying your head in the sand and pretending not to read it, which just makes you look stupid.

Have at it.

And bring those phantom quotes in so we can all have another laugh. Pissant.

Negative rep, thanks! Bam, you're the bomb. I can't believe you'd actually tell me I'm getting to you, but then I can't explain the rest of what you either. Thanks my friend, and positive rep to you for actually telling me how upset you are.

And for the record, I don't believe you're actually lying. You're just an anal word parser with no sense of your own double standards and hypocrisy. But wow, you are one angry little boy.

So what about manning up and clarifying your view on guns? You know, the question I asked and you've dodged for like 50 pages?

 

[kaz]

Stop selling guns to criminals.

Ya tell that to the criminals who are selling the guns. I'm sure they give a sweet flying **** what you tell them.
You idiot LIBs are never going to get it through your heads that there is a demand by inner city Blacks for illegal hand guns. (They aren't sentient enough to work a long gun). That demand is being filled by other criminals.
The only people buying legal hand guns are Whites who want them for self protection against Blacks mainly.
Even our maggot filled Trayvon was able to get an illegal hand gun.
I'll never forget sitting in the back yard of a typical suburban White couple in their early thirties. A cream colored brand new Escalade full of 'young Black men' kept slowly driving down their alley and making obscene comments to the young woman.
She just smiled and patted the lounge pillow she was sitting on and said under her breath: "Come get some mother fuckers". She had a 9MM tucked under it.

Funny how the toughest gun laws are in those inner cities and they have the most murders. Yet liberals still can't think of any other solution than making them illegal no matter how much it doesn't work. Though in fairness on every issue they advocate solutions that already don't work.

CandyCane thinks that if we just tax guns to death we'll get rid of them because sure, criminals may murder people but they draw the line at not paying their taxes and if they can't afford the taxes then the won't buy the gun. JoeB thinks that if he's arrogant and condescending enough that we'll concede to his superior wisdom that doesn't work for drugs (see the op) will in fact work for guns.

Pogo's the most bizarre, he actually is in favor of honest citizens not having guns because if a criminal has a gun and so do you then it's like putting gasoline on a burning building and it's "called escalation." He also says when a criminal is robbing you isn't impossible to tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

And after 140+ pages, not one liberal ever actually answered the question. There is no answer of course, they don't and won't work unless we go to Singapore solutions, and no one is going to do that except probably Joe.

 

[candycorn]

Ah, I stand corrected and duly amend: Two people haven't flipped their calendars since 1954.

Better?

The communist manifesto isn't a calendar, it's a book that describes the philosophy of Karl Marx. He wrote it with Friedrich Engels. That's why they refer to communists as "Marxists."

Democrats have the same principles and use the same anti-rich, anti-capitalism rhetoric that Marx had in his book. That is what we are referring to.

BTW, you're about a hundred years off, it was written in 1848. It still wasn't written on a calendar though.

Oh the density...

Nice! Been there; done that.

As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...

You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down. Eventually the availability dries up.

Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.

 

[kaz]

The communist manifesto isn't a calendar, it's a book that describes the philosophy of Karl Marx. He wrote it with Friedrich Engels. That's why they refer to communists as "Marxists."

Democrats have the same principles and use the same anti-rich, anti-capitalism rhetoric that Marx had in his book. That is what we are referring to.

BTW, you're about a hundred years off, it was written in 1848. It still wasn't written on a calendar though.

Oh the density...

Nice! Been there; done that.

As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...

You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down. Eventually the availability dries up.

Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.

And the question you got on "page 3 or whenever" was what difference does it make whether you make guns illegal or tax them or ban them to the op? The op says if they can't buy legal guns, they will buy them illegally, like kids do drugs. You haven't addressed the question, all you did was change your proposed enforcement method. You just keep begging the question and assuming that if you tax to death instead of ban then your method will work. You also said it's going to take a long, long time and didn't address my question about the people who get murdered in all those decades because they are barred from defending themselves. You also didn't address my question if someone wants to shoot someone why taxes would be an impediment to them, it's not like they are thinking of saving for their old age at that moment. You didn't back up your "solution" at all, which is why I keep saying you didn't address the op. You gave a simplistic answer only, you didn't address it.

BTW, I apologize for calling you "CandyCane." I didn't mean to be snarky, I remembered it wrong. I should have remembered because I like candy corn, but I'm not big on candy canes.

 

[P@triot]

The communist manifesto isn't a calendar, it's a book that describes the philosophy of Karl Marx. He wrote it with Friedrich Engels. That's why they refer to communists as "Marxists."

Democrats have the same principles and use the same anti-rich, anti-capitalism rhetoric that Marx had in his book. That is what we are referring to.

BTW, you're about a hundred years off, it was written in 1848. It still wasn't written on a calendar though.

Oh the density...

Nice! Been there; done that.

As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...

You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down. Eventually the availability dries up.

Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.

Because cigarettes have dried up?!?!

Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!

Yes folks, she really is this stupid...

 

[kaz]

Oh the density...

Nice! Been there; done that.

As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...

You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down. Eventually the availability dries up.

Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.

Because cigarettes have dried up?!?!

Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!

Yes folks, she really is this stupid...

She's actually arguing that if we tax guns more and wait long enough then criminals won't be able to get them, and then she's mocking me for saying she didn't answer the question in the op because she thinks she did.

I keep telling her it doesn't address the question in the op because changing the enforcement method from banning to taxing guns doesn't address why they won't just buy illegal guns, like kids buy pot in high school illegally and the government has been able to do nothing about that.

 

[P@triot]

Oh the density...

Nice! Been there; done that.

As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...

You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down. Eventually the availability dries up.

Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.

Because cigarettes have dried up?!?!

Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!

Yes folks, she really is this stupid...

Dealing with Dumbocrats is far worse than trying to deal with small children on important issues. We all know that the black market supplies anything a criminal desires (narcotics, prostitutions, weapons, people for tax evasion and embezzlement, and on and on and on). Yet we have simpleton's like CandyCunt here making juvenile "arguments" acting as if we could actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals when we can't keep cocaine out of the hands of criminals, or heroin out of the hands of criminals, or crack out of the hands of criminals, or marijuana out of the hands of criminals, or meth out of the hands of criminals, or prostitutes out of the hands of criminals, or computer viruses out of the hands of criminals....

In the history of man kind, stopping a criminal from breaking the law has NEVER happened. And it NEVER will happen. It cannot happen. It is impossible. Because what makes a criminal a criminal is the fact that they do not abide by the law. So outlawing guns will do nothing but disarm law abiding citizens.

And even Dumbocrats like CandyCunt know it too. But they are so immature and so irrational, they try to lie and make a case that isn't true because it will make them irrationally feel "safer" about their irrational fear of those inanimate objects.

 

[P@triot]

Well isn't this just humiliating for the Dumbocrats and their false narrative?

Gunman Bursts Into Dollar Store and Threatens to Kill Everyone - Before Police Could Even Respond, He Was Dead

 

[P@triot]

Well isn't this just humiliating for the Dumbocrats and their false narrative?

Gunman Bursts Into Dollar Store and Threatens to Kill Everyone - Before Police Could Even Respond, He Was Dead

This proves what we all knew already - that Dumbocrats refuse to accept personal responsibility for anything. And that includes their own security. Rather than be "burdened" with training and arming themselves, they would rather just trample on other people's rights.

This man took personal responsibility for his own security. As a result, a mad man is dead and everyone else in the store is completely unharmed. As always, no guns (Newtwon) equals horrific slaughter, while guns (Alabama) equals everyone safe and mad man gone from society for ever.

 

[rdean]

How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?

In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.

 

[Pogo]

How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?

In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.

 

[P@triot]

How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?

In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.

 

[P@triot]

How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?

Because you people want to "legislate" (ie control) the bejesus out of everything. If you're going to legislate something, you damn well better have a plan for it.

The only plan I need is freedom.

 

[P@triot]

How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?

In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.

So then naturally you believe the Secret Service should immediately disarm, right? I mean, if guns are dangerous, than the president is in mortal danger as we speak. Furthermore, if outlawing guns makes the world safe, then all we need to do is outlaw guns and the president will be permanently and forever safe...

[ame=http://youtu.be/AdhXSj-DL1A]Ex Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino @ Guns Across America Rally in Annapolis, MD - 2nd Amendment - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P@triot]

Just curious [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] - can you explain why women get raped? I mean, you guys did outlaw rape hundreds of years ago. So what's going on here? What's the problem? I thought your laws solve all problems?

 

[Pogo]

In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.

So then naturally you believe the Secret Service should immediately disarm, right? I mean, if guns are dangerous, than the president is in mortal danger as we speak. Furthermore, if outlawing guns makes the world safe, then all we need to do is outlaw guns and the president will be permanently and forever safe...

Yeah that is a wacko idea. Maybe it belongs standing out in the cornfield scaring crows where you got it, ya think?