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

[kaz]

Of course if it wasn't for you gun nuts we might have put something in place so this guy didn't have a gun. He did threaten his psychologist after all. Clearly he was nuts and it was known, but the gun people won't let us put anything in place to stop these crimes. Instead they say we need more guns when we already have more than any other country. I guess 232,000 guns going to criminals each year isn't enough for them.

Irrelevant since you haven't presented any plan that would keep guns away from criminals other than pretending that laws that don't work for drugs would work for guns...

 

[kaz]

You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.

Actually, it specifically addresses that.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seriously, if you don't know what 'infringed" means, Google it. But the upshot is that you can bear any weapon you want.

Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?

Dude, you asked and I answered this. From the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

You can remove the right to bear arms if you have gone through the DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Again, if you don't know what that means, Google it. Don't just keep repeating the question. The answer to your question is very straight forward and it's black and white. You can remove those rights, but only through the due process of law.

First you say your right to bear arms can't be violated, then you say the 5th can violate your rights. Do you need a minute to make up your mind?

You're mixing and matching questions and answers, it doesn't work that way.

The first statement was in regard to whether a citizen can carry "any weapon" they want. I said that restricting weapons types infringes on the right to bear arms.

In the second, you asked about criminals and the insane, if they have the same rights. I said they do unless their rights were removed with the due process of law.

You are applying the first answer to the second question. Seriously, liberals have the intellectual capacity of eight year olds. It was butt obvious what each answer meant.

 

[kaz]

Sure it did, as long as it falls under the definition of arms.

Your second point has already been addressed. Please pay better attention.

And many arms are banned.

Arms are any weapon, like nukes, cruise missiles... which you aren't allowed to own. So your rights are already being infringed. And mental health background checks to deny people the right to pack is also an infringement. Denying criminals guns also. And you admitted that short barrel shotguns are illegal. So, in fact, you already don't mind that your rights are already being violated and just accept it.

The Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms, it does not say government has to provide them to you. Getting nukes or cruise missiles would be quite a trick.

 

[P@triot]

And now no children are any safer. Great big win for the gun nuts right?
The legacy of the gun nuts:
January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire

And what do all 11 of those schools have in common? No guns. The complete and total absence of guns. Now lets look at places were guns were prevalent:

White House (0 shootings in the month of January)

Police Stations (0 shootings in the month of January)

NRA meetings (0 shootings in the month of January)

Area 51 (0 shootings in the month of January)

Fort Knox (0 shootings in the month of January)

Wow - the math is shockingly clear here. Only an idiot Dumbocrat couldn't figure this one out.

Well we have had gun free school zones since like 1990. So that has not changed. What has changed is we have more guns and more school shootings. Sorry, you fail.

And we've been experiencing school shootings since 1764 (yep - before we even declared our independence from Britain) by Native American Indians.

The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indians entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only three children survived.

[MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION] - you continue to humiliate yourself by pretending to be knowledgable on a subject (security) that you know absolutely nothing about.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lonestar_logic]

While that is a lot to read, you still can't buy one. Sorry.

Sure you can, the only thing is that the receivers are to be pre-1986.

You can buy a brand new AR-15 swap out the receiver and you have a brand new full auto weapon.

Oh it took some work but you admit I'm right.

So you're saying you can legally change a gun to full auto? Where can you legally buy this receiver? A link to someone selling would be nice. Now you've been proven wrong already so answer carefully.

No but the fact is new receivers aren't available to the general public. Reconditioned receivers are.

 

[P@triot]

I didn't say take guns from those people. Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.

Two words: Sandy Hook

Without my gun, I can't properly defend myself and my family. I don't die if someone takes my vehicle away from me. There is a good chance of dying if someone takes my gun away from me.

Clearly your very slow. The scenario was all guns disappear. In that case there is no Sandy Hook. That sounds kinda nice doesn't it? And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high. I've been doing it my whole life actually. And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.

Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know nothing about.

All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.

In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.

Want to try again junior?

 

[hunarcy]

My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know. Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening. So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary. Try an alarm system, much more effective.

If alarms were the more effective defense, there'd never be a bank robbery.

We have far more guns than any other country, yet we still have crime. I think you put too much faith in guns.

Other nations either have more homogeneous populations or they are better at punishing their criminals.

 

[Brain357]

Two words: Sandy Hook

Without my gun, I can't properly defend myself and my family. I don't die if someone takes my vehicle away from me. There is a good chance of dying if someone takes my gun away from me.

Clearly your very slow. The scenario was all guns disappear. In that case there is no Sandy Hook. That sounds kinda nice doesn't it? And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high. I've been doing it my whole life actually. And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.

Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know nothing about.

All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.

In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.

Want to try again junior?

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

 

[P@triot]

My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know. Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening. So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary. Try an alarm system, much more effective.

Here we see brainless once again pretending to be an expert on something he knows nothing about.

First of all, a wealthy Florida couple (Byrd & Melanie Billings) which took in many children as foster parents were brutally murdered in a home invasion. The perpetrators were actually lead by a former U.S. special forces operator. There were half a dozen people involved in the home invasion and one of them had the responsibility for dismantling the security system.

Now, this made NATIONAL headline news for weeks. But asshats like brainless here remain ignorant of reality 24x7 while pretending like they are "experts" on the subject.

Second, and much more importantly, here is how a security system works (something brainless here knows nothing about). You alarm is "tripped" - the police do NOT receive that notification. The company you contract with does (Brinks, ADT, etc.). That company immediately tries to call your house. If unable to reach you, they try the next number on your list (most likely your cell). After no response, they go to the third number on your list. Now, lets say that third number is a family member in your area. By this time, at least 5 minutes have gone by (more than enough time for someone to kill you). Your family member answers, and is told by the company that there is an alarm at your house. The family member says "let me see if I can get ahold of them". When they can't, they call the company back and tell them to send police. Depending on the city, the average response time for police is anywhere from 5 minutes to 12 minutes (and even worse in some cases). So by now, we're between 15 - 30 minutes. More than enough time for an intruder to kill you, make a sandwich, eat it, and then leave without being caught.

And this is brainless here idea of "much more effective" compared to a gun?

Keep talking stupid! All you're doing is illustrating your ignorance for the world. Love when people like you pretend to be "experts" on things you know nothing about.

 

[kaz]

Clearly your very slow. The scenario was all guns disappear. In that case there is no Sandy Hook. That sounds kinda nice doesn't it? And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high. I've been doing it my whole life actually. And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.

Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know nothing about.

All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.

In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.

Want to try again junior?

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter.

Actually, he wasn't at the shooting, he was near by and came by after the shots. But even if he were there, what difference would that have made to the discussion?

In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

The guy who took the gun from the shooter was not threatening anyone with it, and the guy didn't shoot him. Sounds like a crazy situation worked. If you take a gun from a shooter in a crowd, would you not realize that getting the gun and possibly yourself on the ground immediately would be a best practice? Seriously, anyone could have shot him in the commotion, it was a dangerous situation. Again how that leads to supporting anything you're arguing is certainly a mystery though.

 

[kaz]

My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know. Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening. So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary. Try an alarm system, much more effective.

Here we see brainless once again pretending to be an expert on something he knows nothing about.

First of all, a wealthy Florida couple (Byrd & Melanie Billings) which took in many children as foster parents were brutally murdered in a home invasion. The perpetrators were actually lead by a former U.S. special forces operator. There were half a dozen people involved in the home invasion and one of them had the responsibility for dismantling the security system.

Now, this made NATIONAL headline news for weeks. But asshats like brainless here remain ignorant of reality 24x7 while pretending like they are "experts" on the subject.

Second, and much more importantly, here is how a security system works (something brainless here knows nothing about). You alarm is "tripped" - the police do NOT receive that notification. The company you contract with does (Brinks, ADT, etc.). That company immediately tries to call your house. If unable to reach you, they try the next number on your list (most likely your cell). After no response, they go to the third number on your list. Now, lets say that third number is a family member in your area. By this time, at least 5 minutes have gone by (more than enough time for someone to kill you). Your family member answers, and is told by the company that there is an alarm at your house. The family member says "let me see if I can get ahold of them". When they can't, they call the company back and tell them to send police. Depending on the city, the average response time for police is anywhere from 5 minutes to 12 minutes (and even worse in some cases). So by now, we're between 15 - 30 minutes. More than enough time for an intruder to kill you, make a sandwich, eat it, and then leave without being caught.

And this is brainless here idea of "much more effective" compared to a gun?

Keep talking stupid! All you're doing is illustrating your ignorance for the world. Love when people like you pretend to be "experts" on things you know nothing about.

I'm still waiting for his explanation how a security system would have helped the people at any of the shootings, Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, Columbine, ...

 

[P@triot]

Clearly your very slow. The scenario was all guns disappear. In that case there is no Sandy Hook. That sounds kinda nice doesn't it? And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high. I've been doing it my whole life actually. And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.

Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know nothing about.

All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.

In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.

Want to try again junior?

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

Wait a second!!! You just gave a scenario in which you said (and I quote) "all guns disappear" and you want to talk to me about "the real world"?!?

Second, you continue to illustrate your extraordinary ignorance on every topic. There were no armed CCW licensed individuals on site when the shooting occurred. The first to arrive was a man named Joseph Zamudio - who did so after Loughner had been tackled to the ground and subdued.

You are such a vintage liberal. You're completely and totally ignorant of the facts. You read left-wing propaganda drivel and drink the shit down as "reality" without any research. In short, you're ignorant, lazy, and a liar. In other words, the perfect Dumbocrat.

Had someone been armed that day, Loughner wouldn't have barely been able to get off 3 shots before being taken down.

 

[P@triot]

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

Folks, how great is this? Vintage Dumbocrat stupidity here. Lets pretend for a moment like his statement even remotely resembles reality (which anyone familiar with the Loughner situation will immediately recognize it does not).

His best argument is that a Good Samaritan "almost" shot the wrong person. You get that? He didn't do it. But we should ban guns because in brainless's mind here, the bystander almost shot the wrong person....

Now of course, that never happened anyway. But how hilarious is it that brainless is so desperate to make an argument, we now need to consider almost doing something as a crime, an issue, or a reason to take action...

 

[kaz]

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

Folks, how great is this? Vintage Dumbocrat stupidity here. Lets pretend for a moment like his statement even remotely resembles reality (which anyone familiar with the Loughner situation will immediately recognize it does not).

His best argument is that a Good Samaritan "almost" shot the wrong person. You get that? He didn't do it. But we should ban guns because in brainless's mind here, the bystander almost shot the wrong person....

Now of course, that never happened anyway. But how hilarious is it that brainless is so desperate to make an argument, we now need to consider almost doing something as a crime, an issue, or a reason to take action...

He's just pointing out that while the criminal shot his target, the honest citizen didn't shoot anyone, which proves that we need gun laws that keep guns from honest citizens that don't keep guns from criminals. You're not buying that, Rottweiler?

 

[Brain357]

My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know. Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening. So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary. Try an alarm system, much more effective.

Here we see brainless once again pretending to be an expert on something he knows nothing about.

First of all, a wealthy Florida couple (Byrd & Melanie Billings) which took in many children as foster parents were brutally murdered in a home invasion. The perpetrators were actually lead by a former U.S. special forces operator. There were half a dozen people involved in the home invasion and one of them had the responsibility for dismantling the security system.

Now, this made NATIONAL headline news for weeks. But asshats like brainless here remain ignorant of reality 24x7 while pretending like they are "experts" on the subject.

Second, and much more importantly, here is how a security system works (something brainless here knows nothing about). You alarm is "tripped" - the police do NOT receive that notification. The company you contract with does (Brinks, ADT, etc.). That company immediately tries to call your house. If unable to reach you, they try the next number on your list (most likely your cell). After no response, they go to the third number on your list. Now, lets say that third number is a family member in your area. By this time, at least 5 minutes have gone by (more than enough time for someone to kill you). Your family member answers, and is told by the company that there is an alarm at your house. The family member says "let me see if I can get ahold of them". When they can't, they call the company back and tell them to send police. Depending on the city, the average response time for police is anywhere from 5 minutes to 12 minutes (and even worse in some cases). So by now, we're between 15 - 30 minutes. More than enough time for an intruder to kill you, make a sandwich, eat it, and then leave without being caught.

And this is brainless here idea of "much more effective" compared to a gun?

Keep talking stupid! All you're doing is illustrating your ignorance for the world. Love when people like you pretend to be "experts" on things you know nothing about.

Ok so your expecting a team of assassins to come take you out who can dismantle the security system? Really? Sorry but if that group is coming after you it wouldn't really matter what you had, your dead. So the point of your example was? How many times has such things happened? I'm guessing once, but that doesn't stop your paranoia does it?

Wow you sure are a security expert. Well I hate to break this to you but most people would call 911 right away when the alarm goes off with a break in. Nice of you to write all that nonsense though Mr Security. haha

Sorry but I'd take the security system over the gun. Criminals aren't going to stick around after they hear the alarm, chance of getting caught too high at that point. And since 232,000 guns are stolen a year that pretty much proves that just having a gun isn't so good.

 

[Brain357]

Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know nothing about.

All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.

In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.

Want to try again junior?

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

Wait a second!!! You just gave a scenario in which you said (and I quote) "all guns disappear" and you want to talk to me about "the real world"?!?

Second, you continue to illustrate your extraordinary ignorance on every topic. There were no armed CCW licensed individuals on site when the shooting occurred. The first to arrive was a man named Joseph Zamudio - who did so after Loughner had been tackled to the ground and subdued.

You are such a vintage liberal. You're completely and totally ignorant of the facts. You read left-wing propaganda drivel and drink the shit down as "reality" without any research. In short, you're ignorant, lazy, and a liar. In other words, the perfect Dumbocrat.

Had someone been armed that day, Loughner wouldn't have barely been able to get off 3 shots before being taken down.

Lets hear some examples of the shooter being taken down as you claim it would happen. Certainly there must be many examples. I'm sure a shooting range is very safe right? Oh wait, Chris Kyle was at a range wasn't he?

 

[Brain357]

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

Folks, how great is this? Vintage Dumbocrat stupidity here. Lets pretend for a moment like his statement even remotely resembles reality (which anyone familiar with the Loughner situation will immediately recognize it does not).

His best argument is that a Good Samaritan "almost" shot the wrong person. You get that? He didn't do it. But we should ban guns because in brainless's mind here, the bystander almost shot the wrong person....

Now of course, that never happened anyway. But how hilarious is it that brainless is so desperate to make an argument, we now need to consider almost doing something as a crime, an issue, or a reason to take action...

I haven't said to ban guns. I'm merely pointing to an example where your imaginary hero with a gun taking down the shooter didn't happen.

 

[The Irish Ram]

We have carried guns in this country since this was a country and have never seen anything like this. The difference is now our children spend hours and hours with play stations killing and killing some more, and grand theft auto, and more carnage.
And then we are surprised when they act out what they have been doing in their bedrooms day after day by taking what they have learned to our schools, theaters and anywhere else they want.

We don't have a gun problem in the United States, we have a violence problem.

 

[OKTexas]

Clearly your very slow. The scenario was all guns disappear. In that case there is no Sandy Hook. That sounds kinda nice doesn't it? And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high. I've been doing it my whole life actually. And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.

Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know nothing about.

All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.

In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.

Want to try again junior?

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.

 

[Brain357]

Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know nothing about.

All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.

In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.

Want to try again junior?

But that's not the real world. In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot. Yet he didn't stop the shooter. In fact he almost shot the wrong person. Now that's reality.

Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.

It's interesting that you guys are focusing on the almost shot the wrong person. The main point was that he didn't stop the shooter and that will more than likely be the case in these situations with all the chaos. This gentleman was in fact a responsible gun owner when he didn't shoot.