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

[kaz]

So we should allow people to defend themselves since what we have now is armed criminals and unarmed citizenry.

So, you are saying that everyone that owns a gun in America is a criminal? Brilliant...

Snarky comments that add nothing to the discussion and make no sense in light of what was quoted add so much to the discussion, thank you for that contribution.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?

It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

 

[kaz]

Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?

It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?

Swift and certain gun crime penalties.

Commit a gun crime = Life in prison
Commit a gun crime resulting in death = Execution

Fixed.

Are you arguing that we do this and ban guns? Or we do this and don't ban guns?

If it's the former, the right won't go for it because it bans guns and the left won't because they want to coddle the guilty and blame society and they oppose the death penalty. If you are not banning guns, you are not addressing the op.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?

It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

Ban "gun free" zones for starters.

Then let's debate how we can distinguish those that are mentally disturbed and include them in the NICS database so they cannot purchase firearms.

I also believe we should teach gun safety in school and what a child should do when they see a gun.

We need less restrictions on law abiding citizens, not more.

 

[Bumberclyde]

It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

Ban "gun free" zones for starters.

Then let's debate how we can distinguish those that are mentally disturbed and include them in the NICS database so they cannot purchase firearms.

I also believe we should teach gun safety in school and what a child should do when they see a gun.

We need less restrictions on law abiding citizens, not more.

Ok, you have nothing. Anyone else?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

Ban "gun free" zones for starters.

Then let's debate how we can distinguish those that are mentally disturbed and include them in the NICS database so they cannot purchase firearms.

I also believe we should teach gun safety in school and what a child should do when they see a gun.

We need less restrictions on law abiding citizens, not more.

Ok, you have nothing. Anyone else?

It's nothing to morons and retards.

Which one are you?

 

[P@triot]

Unlike laws requiring a state-issued photo ID to vote, a background check is Constitutional because it’s rationally based, has evidence in support, and pursues a proper legislate end – to wit: disallowing felons, the mentally ill, or those abusing narcotics from possessing a firearm

We need to start a show called "Dumbocrats Say The Darndest Things"...

Hey junior - something is not Constitutional because it is "rationally-based". Something is Constitutional because it adheres to what is in the Constitution (ie my ownership of firearms is Constitutional because the 2nd Amendment states that I have the right to keep and bear arms)...

The left literally just makes shit up as they go. I've come to the conclusion that they are just too ****'n lazy to read the U.S. Constitution - yet they are desperate to be seen as "educated" and "enlightened", so they just throw shit out there and hope that others are as uninformed as they are....

 

[P@triot]

It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

Ban "gun free" zones for starters.

Then let's debate how we can distinguish those that are mentally disturbed and include them in the NICS database so they cannot purchase firearms.

I also believe we should teach gun safety in school and what a child should do when they see a gun.

We need less restrictions on law abiding citizens, not more.

 

[P@triot]

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

Ban "gun free" zones for starters.

Then let's debate how we can distinguish those that are mentally disturbed and include them in the NICS database so they cannot purchase firearms.

I also believe we should teach gun safety in school and what a child should do when they see a gun.

We need less restrictions on law abiding citizens, not more.

Ok, you have nothing. Anyone else?

It's amazing - Dumbocrats like you have no solutions. None. Not even one. You've been asked for 200 pages now to provide one and the lot of you can't come up with even ONE thing.

Yet, when a conservative provides real-world, practical, proven solutions, you give a snarky response like an asshole.

What's really sad is that you can't even articulate why it's a bad solution. You literally just waste time and space on the board by saying "ok, you have nothing". The fact that you can't articulate why he has "nothing" (as I am doing to you here) is glaring evidence that he's right and you are dead-wrong.

You're not only ignorant, you're lazy. In other words, you're a liberal.

 

[kaz]

Ban "gun free" zones for starters

One clarification here. As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.

 

[kaz]

Unlike laws requiring a state-issued photo ID to vote, a background check is Constitutional because it’s rationally based, has evidence in support, and pursues a proper legislate end – to wit: disallowing felons, the mentally ill, or those abusing narcotics from possessing a firearm

We need to start a show called "Dumbocrats Say The Darndest Things"...

Hey junior - something is not Constitutional because it is "rationally-based". Something is Constitutional because it adheres to what is in the Constitution (ie my ownership of firearms is Constitutional because the 2nd Amendment states that I have the right to keep and bear arms)...

The left literally just makes shit up as they go. I've come to the conclusion that they are just too ****'n lazy to read the U.S. Constitution - yet they are desperate to be seen as "educated" and "enlightened", so they just throw shit out there and hope that others are as uninformed as they are....

So checking ID for guns, forcing them to register with government and pay fees is rationally based. Checking the ID of someone who wants to vote for the people who create our laws isn't.

What clayton means is "rational" = "leftist."

He also has an imaginary "right to vote" he keeps referring to that he says is in the Constitution and he ignores my requests to show that text. There is no such Constitutional right.

I do give him credit though that he is not for restricting gun ownership.

 

[kaz]

Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?

It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

Well, technically they are working, they are just not working in the way that we want them to. Every time there's a mass shooting, no one is shooting back. These shootings keep happening in gun free zones, and for a reason.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ban "gun free" zones for starters

One clarification here. As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.

Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.

 

[hunarcy]

Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?

It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

So, you admit that the current gun control laws don't work. Obviously an accident, because it puts you on the correct side. Now, do YOU have anything else?

 

[Bumberclyde]

It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

Well, technically they are working, they are just not working in the way that we want them to. Every time there's a mass shooting, no one is shooting back. These shootings keep happening in gun free zones, and for a reason.

Ok, you have nothing. Next.

 

[Bumberclyde]

It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

So, you admit that the current gun control laws don't work. Obviously an accident, because it puts you on the correct side. Now, do YOU have anything else?

I'm asking NRA/gun yahoos if they even have a plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands.

And ya, I have something: stop selling bullets. There's no constitutional protection for bullets.

 

[kaz]

Ban "gun free" zones for starters

One clarification here. As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.

Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.

I was happy, then sad. How is a private business "open to the public" not private property? How can you morally, legally or ethically tell someone what rules they must follow on their own property? I'm totally for following the second amendment, which say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, by government, you have me there. It's that you're saying people don't have the right to determine the rules on their own property rights that I find objectionable.

 

[kaz]

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

Well, technically they are working, they are just not working in the way that we want them to. Every time there's a mass shooting, no one is shooting back. These shootings keep happening in gun free zones, and for a reason.

Ok, you have nothing. Next.

I don't even know what that means.

What I have is that gun laws don't work, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We follow the Constitution and allow people to protect themselves, win-win. Now we don't follow the Constitution, we don't allow people to defend themselves, and every time there is a mass shooting no one is shooting back because the victims followed the law and the criminal didn't.

How that is having "nothing" is for you to explain.

 

[hunarcy]

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

So, you admit that the current gun control laws don't work. Obviously an accident, because it puts you on the correct side. Now, do YOU have anything else?

I'm asking NRA/gun yahoos if they even have a plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands.

And ya, I have something: stop selling bullets. There's no constitutional protection for bullets.

My Lord, you're a stupid person. Why did I waste a moment trying to have a serious discussion with you on any thread?

 

[hunarcy]

I don't even know what that means.

What I have is that gun laws don't work, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We follow the Constitution and allow people to protect themselves, win-win. Now we don't follow the Constitution, we don't allow people to defend themselves, and every time there is a mass shooting no one is shooting back because the victims followed the law and the criminal didn't.

How that is having "nothing" is for you to explain.

The reason you "have nothing" is because he/she/it is too stupid to understand what's being said. Honestly, I feel he/she/it has nothing to contribute to a discussion and therefore isn't worth reading.