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

[kaz]

Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.

Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.

Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped murder with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.

****, are you stupid.

Gun laws prevent people from protecting themselves, and they do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens. Why do shooters go to the Washington Navy yard parking lot, campuses, movie theaters, schools, malls? They know there are no guns there. They do it on purpose. Think about it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In fact this whole gun control thing is a reverse post hoc argument.

"By banning or confiscating guns in regards to gun violence, you will therefore avoid gun violence."

Sigh, such fallacious thinking. Chicago should be a prime example.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.

Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.

Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped murder with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.

And here we have an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most ‘gun rights’ extremists; unwittingly doing great harm to our Second Amendment rights.

Pointing out that gun free zones are the preferred hunting grounds of the criminally insane hurts second amendment rights? In who's delusional world would that be? Ohh ya yours.

 

[hazlnut]

A national database accessible by all law enforcement.

Every assault weapon comes with a pink slip -- you sell it, the new owner has to pass a background check.

Every gun recovered at a crime should be traceable back to an owner.


Once we identity who is selling guns or moving guns into the black market, then we arrest them.

The black market dries up, it becomes harder from criminals to get guns, the price of black market guns goes way up.

Of course, paranoid gun nutters think there's going to be a gun 'grab' and they fight any national gun database like maniacs.

There is a small but loud sector of gun ownership that is definitely a cult.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A national database accessible by all law enforcement.

Every assault weapon comes with a pink slip -- you sell it, the new owner has to pass a background check.

Every gun recovered at a crime should be traceable back to an owner.


Once we identity who is selling guns or moving guns into the black market, then we arrest them.

The black market dries up, it becomes harder from criminals to get guns, the price of black market guns goes way up.

Of course, paranoid gun nutters think there's going to be a gun 'grab' and they fight any national gun database like maniacs.

There is a small but loud sector of gun ownership that is definitely a cult.

Ya cause guns coming over the border are going to be registered. And Guns stolen will not help you trace shit.

The reality is that EVERY registration has lead to confiscation, INCLUDING here, just check out New York for proof.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thank you sir, for reaffirming your hypocrisy on the law.

You are, however, consistent in making no sense, the above being a typical example.

A-ha!

And ad hominem signals the end of your premise. Have a seat Clayton. If you were so worried about equal protection under the law, you would be passing laws protecting, not eliminating, the rights of law abiding gun owners. But oh hey, whatever floats your political boat, mister.

You truly are skilled at making no sense, and your ignorance is indeed comprehensive.

Let’s make this as simple as possible so you might understand.

In order for the government to place restrictions on a citizen’s rights, those restrictions must be rationally based, be supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a legitimate legislative end.

So far so good?

Now, as we’ve seen in both Utah and Oklahoma, laws violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples were invalidated by Federal courts because they lacked a rational basis, lacked objective, documented evidence in support, and failed to pursue a legitimate legislative end.

You and others on the right denounced these rulings.

Here is where the hypocrisy and inconsistency of you and many others on the right comes into play:

New York recently enacted a ban on ‘assault weapons.’ As with the measures in Utah and Oklahoma disallowing same-sex couples to marry, the New York law likewise lacks a rational basis, lacks objective, documented evidence in support, and fails to pursue a legitimate legislative end. The New York will likely be found un-Constitutional accordingly.

See how that works?

Whatever the right the states seeks to deny – the right to marry, the right to privacy, the right to vote, or the right to own a gun – those restrictions must be rationally based, be supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Consequently, in order for you and most others on the right to be consistent in your opposition to laws placing restrictions on access to firearms, you must also oppose laws denying same-sex couples to marry, oppose laws banning abortion, and oppose laws requiring an ID to vote – because restrictions on these rights are not rationally, objectivity justified, they’re motivated by subjective, unwarranted disapproval, be that disapproval of guns or same sex couples, it makes no difference constitutionally.

Last, when you find the passage in the Heller ruling where Justice Scalia explains that the Second Amendment right is unlimited and not subject to government restrictions, get back to us.

 

[Pogo]

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.

NO, it is not "reasonable and logical"; it is elective. You're injecting your own content. I'll ask you for the third time: how are rights and interests related?

How do you need a law to have an interest in a video game or a Corvette? In what way is that interest obliterated if Corvettes become illegal?

And where have I posted anything about "rights"?

You're verging here on doing the same thing Cousin It did-- plugging in what you wish I'd said instead of dealing with what I actually did say. It stumps me why some of y'all just can't bear to face the issue and insist on putting up these "law" strawmen. Again I say - laws didn't get us to where we are, and laws ain't gonna get us out.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

NO, it is not "reasonable and logical"; it is elective. You're injecting your own content. I'll ask you for the third time: how are rights and interests related?

How do you need a law to have an interest in a video game or a Corvette? In what way is that interest obliterated if Corvettes become illegal?

And where have I posted anything about "rights"?

You're verging here on doing the same thing Cousin It did-- plugging in what you wish I'd said instead of dealing with what I actually did say. It stumps me why some of y'all just can't bear to face the issue and insist on putting up these "law" strawmen. Again I say - laws didn't get us to where we are, and laws ain't gonna get us out.

Rights and interests are always related. When someone nails your position, you automatically go about saying that people are putting words in your mouth, Pogo.

Why do homosexuals fight for rights? Not only for their "equality" but for their interests. See how that works, Pogo? Video games and Corvettes are nothing but a false dichotomy.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So much for "shall not be infringed". How many more in the bill of rights to you want to trash in the process, why not the 4th and 5th amendments while your at it?

 

[Pogo]

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.

NO, it is not "reasonable and logical"; it is elective. You're injecting your own content. I'll ask you for the third time: how are rights and interests related?

How do you need a law to have an interest in a video game or a Corvette? In what way is that interest obliterated if Corvettes become illegal?

And where have I posted anything about "rights"?

You're verging here on doing the same thing Cousin It did-- plugging in what you wish I'd said instead of dealing with what I actually did say. It stumps me why some of y'all just can't bear to face the issue and insist on putting up these "law" strawmen. Again I say - laws didn't get us to where we are, and laws ain't gonna get us out.

Rights and interests are always related. When someone nails your position, you automatically go about saying that people are putting words in your mouth, Pogo.

Why do homosexuals fight for rights? Not only for their "equality" but for their interests. See how that works, Pogo? Video games and Corvettes are nothing but a false dichotomy.

OK well if that's as wide as your net casts, there's no point in going on; this is the same point Kaz and I got to eons ago-- once he/she/it couldn't think creatively enough to expand its paradigm, it insisted I haven't said anything because it can't deal with what's on the page. I've put too much thought into the position I came here with to abandon that and pretend the issue is about something else that I already rejected.

There is no relationship between rights and interests. Your attempted analogy is, sorry, ridiculous.

You're seeing "rights" because you're seeing "laws". That's a strawman. Basically the OP (in its text) is asking the wrong question for its own title; it assumes the false premise that any such solution must be based on laws, as if throwing laws at the problem (or throwing them away) is the only way to effect change. Again, that's a slavish box that I'm not going into. I left that box behind for a reason; it's a dead end. **** laws.

But do go on and I'm sure whatever comes out of that box will be as effective as its predecessors like Prohibition and Reefer Madness. We never learn.

 

[Spoonman]

In fact this whole gun control thing is a reverse post hoc argument.

"By banning or confiscating guns in regards to gun violence, you will therefore avoid gun violence."

Sigh, such fallacious thinking. Chicago should be a prime example.

 

[Spoonman]

 

[Pogo]

In fact this whole gun control thing is a reverse post hoc argument.

"By banning or confiscating guns in regards to gun violence, you will therefore avoid gun violence."

Sigh, such fallacious thinking. Chicago should be a prime example.

I don't know where that graphic comes from but having lived in New Orleans I can say without hesitation it's full of shit.

Just sayin'.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens’ civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.

So you don't think anyone should need an ID or a background check to buy a gun?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens’ civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.

So you don't think anyone should need an ID or a background check to buy a gun?

Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.

 

[OKTexas]

Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out". Not possible. Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements. Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.

"Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction. They're part of human nature. That's the first thing you gotta get through your head. Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit. Everything has a reason.

Yep their part of human nature, but if they learn that there will be no revolving door in the jail they will adjust their bahavior or die, it's a very simple concept, if you can't live by the rules then you will die by the rules.

Absent due process, of course.

You're not paying attention, I said just the opposite.

 

[Spoonman]

Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens’ civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.

So you don't think anyone should need an ID or a background check to buy a gun?

Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.

or to vote.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Only if the courts decide licensing would violate the Second Amendment. I'm of the opinion licensing does not infringe the right to own arms. The laws already allow restrictions on some citizens from own, possessing or having in their custody and control guns, and allowing the states to police their duty to protect their citizens seems reasonable.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So you don't think anyone should need an ID or a background check to buy a gun?

Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.

or to vote.

Last time I looked no one every got killed by a welfare check or a vote.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Only if the courts decide licensing would violate the Second Amendment. I'm of the opinion licensing does not infringe the right to own arms. The laws already allow restrictions on some citizens from own, possessing or having in their custody and control guns, and allowing the states to police their duty to protect their citizens seems reasonable.

A state has no duty to protect, the supremes have already ruled on that, so it is not a justification for denying rights.