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

[Pogo]

Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.

It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.

You just think he wants to disarm everyone because you have no proper comeback, so you reach for a simplistic strawman argument.

That's exactly what was going on.

 

[kaz]

What he wants to get rid of is gun fetishism. Which is what drives a ridiculous statement like 'the answer to guns is MORE guns'. He wants to shine the mentality.

And you don't do that with laws. And that's the part that sails over the heads of the Buttsoilers and Kazmats, those intellectual giants who find themselves unable to think beyond the simplistic.

Laws are irrelevant distraction. We didn't get where we are out of laws, nor will they take us out.

So that's finally an answer to the op. I won't say you didn't answer it again. I don't get what you think you got out of not answering it for so long. If no one knows what you are arguing, you can be sure that you're not having any effect on their thinking.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Well, I've been reading over some of your responses to kaz, and I was just wondering, Pogo...

When or if you take away the guns, wouldn't you be causing more criminality? I mean, when you outlaw something, it automatically becomes criminal. Just look at the sale of marijuana. Wouldn't it be fair reasoning to say that by outlawing something you create more criminals? By rendering guns as contraband, you invite people to buy and sell them on a black market, you've only made a bad problem worse. Not only do you have the murderer as a criminal, you have an innocent gun owner right alongside, a criminal just like the murderer.

In this case, the answer is "more guns."

 

[Bumberclyde]

Easy...

1. Strict registration of all guns and stricter regulation of laws.

2. Mandatory felony and 3-5 years in prison for anyone who leaves a gun available for theft.

3. Mandatory 10-25 years in prison for anyone selling, bartering, or giving a gun away without a background check and registration. Ban all gun shows.

4. Mandatory felony life in prison for criminals using a gun, stolen or not, in a crime.

Eventually, guns will disappear from the hands of criminals who use them to commit crimes.

I have conceded that Singapore style enforcement of laws would work. However, that's not going to happen. You're going from our current solution, which is similar to drugs, which is supported by the left, and you're going to a solution that no one supports. I am not arguing you didn't address the op, you did. But it doesn't end the discussion for that reason. No one supports it.

I do.

 

[kaz]

Easy...

1. Strict registration of all guns and stricter regulation of laws.

2. Mandatory felony and 3-5 years in prison for anyone who leaves a gun available for theft.

3. Mandatory 10-25 years in prison for anyone selling, bartering, or giving a gun away without a background check and registration. Ban all gun shows.

4. Mandatory felony life in prison for criminals using a gun, stolen or not, in a crime.

Eventually, guns will disappear from the hands of criminals who use them to commit crimes.

I have conceded that Singapore style enforcement of laws would work. However, that's not going to happen. You're going from our current solution, which is similar to drugs, which is supported by the left, and you're going to a solution that no one supports. I am not arguing you didn't address the op, you did. But it doesn't end the discussion for that reason. No one supports it.

I do.

That's obviously not what I meant.

 

[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.

Well, I've been reading over some of your responses to kaz, and I was just wondering, Pogo...

When or if you take away the guns, wouldn't you be causing more criminality? I mean, when you outlaw something, it automatically becomes criminal. Just look at the sale of marijuana. Wouldn't it be fair reasoning to say that by outlawing something you create more criminals? By rendering guns as contraband, you invite people to buy and sell them on a black market, you've only made a bad problem worse. Not only do you have the murderer as a criminal, you have an innocent gun owner right alongside, a criminal just like the murderer.

In this case, the answer is "more guns."

I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK. That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine. Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers". So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless. Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural. It's fetishism. The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.

As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences. Doesn't matter what the laws are. Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Well, I've been reading over some of your responses to kaz, and I was just wondering, Pogo...

When or if you take away the guns, wouldn't you be causing more criminality? I mean, when you outlaw something, it automatically becomes criminal. Just look at the sale of marijuana. Wouldn't it be fair reasoning to say that by outlawing something you create more criminals? By rendering guns as contraband, you invite people to buy and sell them on a black market, you've only made a bad problem worse. Not only do you have the murderer as a criminal, you have an innocent gun owner right alongside, a criminal just like the murderer.

In this case, the answer is "more guns."

I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK. That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine. Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers". So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless. Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural. It's fetishism. The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.

As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences. Doesn't matter what the laws are. Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.

Pogo, it's misleading to say "I'm not for gun laws" but then refer to gun rights folks as "gun fetishists" in the same breath.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

1. Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;

2. Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;

3. Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;

4. Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;

5. Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.

 

[kaz]

I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK. That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine. Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers". So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless. Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural. It's fetishism. The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.

As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences. Doesn't matter what the laws are. Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.

Actually, I pretty clearly stated the fact that you were arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws. Which you agreed with. And I asked you what you did mean then, and got no answer until a couple posts ago. You know, like when you kept badgering Templar to clarify his views on another thread...

 

[kaz]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

1. Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;

2. Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;

3. Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;

4. Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;

5. Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.

That's worse than what we have now. Most criminals actually don't have assets. That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases. This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.

 

[Pogo]

Well, I've been reading over some of your responses to kaz, and I was just wondering, Pogo...

When or if you take away the guns, wouldn't you be causing more criminality? I mean, when you outlaw something, it automatically becomes criminal. Just look at the sale of marijuana. Wouldn't it be fair reasoning to say that by outlawing something you create more criminals? By rendering guns as contraband, you invite people to buy and sell them on a black market, you've only made a bad problem worse. Not only do you have the murderer as a criminal, you have an innocent gun owner right alongside, a criminal just like the murderer.

In this case, the answer is "more guns."

I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK. That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine. Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers". So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless. Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural. It's fetishism. The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.

As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences. Doesn't matter what the laws are. Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.

Pogo, it's misleading to say "I'm not for gun laws" but then refer to gun rights folks as "gun fetishists" in the same breath.

Is it?

Why? How are they at all related?
And let's clarify, again I'm not talking about gun "rights". I'm talking about gun fetishism. Again, two things that are not related. You don't need one to have the other.

 

[Pogo]

I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK. That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine. Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers". So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless. Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural. It's fetishism. The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.

As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences. Doesn't matter what the laws are. Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.

Actually, I pretty clearly stated the fact that you were arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws. Which you agreed with. And I asked you what you did mean then, and got no answer until a couple posts ago. You know, like when you kept badgering Templar to clarify his views on another thread...

"I got no answer" means "I didn't get the answer I wanted to hear and could deal with". Your illiteracy is not my problem, Cousin It.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

1. Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;

2. Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;

3. Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;

4. Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;

5. Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.

That's worse than what we have now. Most criminals actually don't have assets. That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases. This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK. That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine. Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers". So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless. Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural. It's fetishism. The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.

As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences. Doesn't matter what the laws are. Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.

Pogo, it's misleading to say "I'm not for gun laws" but then refer to gun rights folks as "gun fetishists" in the same breath.

Is it?

Why? How are they at all related?
And let's clarify, again I'm not talking about gun "rights". I'm talking about gun fetishism. Again, two things that are not related. You don't need one to have the other.

Once again, you're mincing words. You have a conspicuously negative attitude towards gun rights folks, which implies to me that you might favor gun control more than you realize.

 

[Pogo]

1. Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;

2. Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;

3. Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;

4. Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;

5. Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.

That's worse than what we have now. Most criminals actually don't have assets. That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases. This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

Precisely -- another fallacy of that false dichotomy of seeing the world as a giant game of Cowboys and Indians.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo, it's misleading to say "I'm not for gun laws" but then refer to gun rights folks as "gun fetishists" in the same breath.

Is it?

Why? How are they at all related?
And let's clarify, again I'm not talking about gun "rights". I'm talking about gun fetishism. Again, two things that are not related. You don't need one to have the other.

Once again, you're mincing words. You have a conspicuously negative attitude towards gun rights folks, which implies to me that you might favor gun control more than you realize.

OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.

You like video games? Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette? None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
See where I am?

 

[TemplarKormac]

1. Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;

2. Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;

3. Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;

4. Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;

5. Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.

That's worse than what we have now. Most criminals actually don't have assets. That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases. This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm...

With the understanding that the states also have the power to not license those who want to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm, as such measures would be in violation of those states’ constitutions, and likely the Federal Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is it?

Why? How are they at all related?
And let's clarify, again I'm not talking about gun "rights". I'm talking about gun fetishism. Again, two things that are not related. You don't need one to have the other.

Once again, you're mincing words. You have a conspicuously negative attitude towards gun rights folks, which implies to me that you might favor gun control more than you realize.

OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.

You like video games? Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette? None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
See where I am?

You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.

Your terminology is giving your position away.

 

[P@triot]

It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.

You just think he wants to disarm everyone because you have no proper comeback, so you reach for a simplistic strawman argument.

Pogo argued against guns in a thread about gun laws. Then he's saying that he didn't use the word "law." He also called me a liar BTW because I said he called me female because he started calling me "she."

Even if you consider it a strawman to think that someone arguing against guns in a threat about gun laws is arguing for gun laws, he's been repeatedly asked to clarify what he does mean. Do you not think that he should man up and answer the question in the op if he's going to argue with people about it in the thread?

He's arguing simply for attention. Cross-dressing in an empty apartment is no longer satisfying for him. He's in a tizzy, lonely, desperate, and just looking for interaction. If that means he has to be a troll and argue for both A and B then he'll argue for both A and B while denying both.

There is not one rational person here who disagrees - his rant was overwhelming "disarm the American people". He repeatedly referred to guns as a "problem", called more guns "like throwing gasoline on a fire" (and who thinks that is a good thing?!?!), and then finished by slamming guns and religion.

But.....he's "pro-gun" everyone. Well, so long as you'll keep giving him attention since his Victoria's Secret thong is no longer thrilling him like it used to. Just put him on ignore and move on. No sense in arguing with someone who literally argues with themselves and denies what they say from what post to the next.