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

[Brain357]

Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?

Do you have any idea how delusional you sound? Do you seriously think that an armed resistance to government is going to turn out well for the insurgents? And do you want to end up in a society like Somalia, which is what you have if such an endeavor were successful?

So if the President declares he is Emperor and enough of the military agrees to let him hold it, you want us just to shrug our shoulders and accept it?

You seen our military lately? You'd have no chance. Thank the republicans for that.

 

[Brain357]

Grades school...and the Federalist Papers...and private letters written by the framers of the Constitution. They were very clean on what the Second Amendment was for.

Delusional.

Sure, "a more perfect union"... oh, but were idiots so it might need to be overthrown by violence.

Delusional.

Again since more government's have historically tended toward tyranny than not, who is more delusional here? Us who believe that people should have the right to fight tyrannical government or you who thinks tyranny can't happen here?

Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny. Not even the anti gun euro countries have. They should be the first right?

 

[candycorn]

with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments. Nice work. Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote. Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them. Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that? We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue. The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry. The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment. Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.

Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation. That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs. Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves. These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people. If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine. That's your right. But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.

You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.

Roughly translated, poor people will forfeit their right to self defence, hunting, firearms ownership in general, and rich folks will get all the guns. Again, its sad to see so many so willing to let others do their thinking for them.

Gee, you mean the poor can't afford everything they want? Call 60 Minutes...that's big news.

 

[itfitzme]

Grades school...and the Federalist Papers...and private letters written by the framers of the Constitution. They were very clean on what the Second Amendment was for.

Delusional.

Sure, "a more perfect union"... oh, but were idiots so it might need to be overthrown by violence.

Delusional.

Again since more government's have historically tended toward tyranny than not, who is more delusional here? Us who believe that people should have the right to fight tyrannical government or you who thinks tyranny can't happen here?

You. You would be the one that is delusional. You. Seeing as you need to ask...you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.

Roughly translated, poor people will forfeit their right to self defence, hunting, firearms ownership in general, and rich folks will get all the guns. Again, its sad to see so many so willing to let others do their thinking for them.

Gee, you mean the poor can't afford everything they want? Call 60 Minutes...that's big news.

Once again for the slow and stupid. The Courts ruled that you can not punitively tax a right , so you can not do so on firearms without a new Supreme Court ruling, which will then open Voting up for punitive taxes again.

 

[candycorn]

with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments. Nice work. Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote. Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them. Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that? We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue. The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry. The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment. Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.

Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation. That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs. Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves. These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people. If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine. That's your right. But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.

You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.

I'm sorry but your argument is horribly flawed candy. I'm sorry for whatever you experienced in life that gave you such a negative preception of guns. At some point I hope you gain the objectivity to realize that it is only that; a perception which does not neccessarily constitute reality. You say the above as if their is a realtionship between the number of guns in existence and death. That's simply not correct. You convenietly ignored my response, probably because you can't argue it, but to reiterate, if that were the case, there should have been death and violence all around growing up considering the number of guns in my neighborhood and that simply wasn't the case. You are wrong on to fronts here. A moral one in that it wrong to punish and stigmatize the law abiding in response to the non law abiding. You are no different than someone who would tax a person for being gay. It is also wrong from simple logical problem solving perspective. If you outlaw guns, only the lawless will have them.

Society has long taxed behavior it sees as damaging and encouraged behavior it sees as beneficial.

Sorry you disagree with what I perceive as one or the other. I tend to think of body counts in the thousands as bad things and you do not...but there is NO danger of anything I'm proposing getting passed in this day and age.

Relax.

 

[candycorn]

Roughly translated, poor people will forfeit their right to self defence, hunting, firearms ownership in general, and rich folks will get all the guns. Again, its sad to see so many so willing to let others do their thinking for them.

Gee, you mean the poor can't afford everything they want? Call 60 Minutes...that's big news.

Once again for the slow and stupid. The Courts ruled that you can not punitively tax a right , so you can not do so on firearms without a new Supreme Court ruling, which will then open Voting up for punitive taxes again.

Could happen; I didn't think the SC would uphold Obamacare...but it did.

 

[kaz]

Specifically address the point in the op, please. Since any highschool kid can get as much pot as they want, which is expressly illegal. How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns? You have to explain why your idea will work for guns when it doesn't work for pot.

Anyone can grow pot in a pot; one can't grow a gun

So, suppose you eliminate all guns from the USA for one moment.

1) We don't have border security to the south, people walk across every day. They can bring guns from Mexico

2) Drugs come in from places from Columbia to Afghanistan evading our Coast Guard and air patrols.

And while you can't "grow" guns, you can make them. The technology isn't that hard. And the fact is now the country is full of guns.

So again whiff, you haven't explained at all why kids can get all the pot they want and yet you're saying that isn't so for guns when in fact not only can (and do) illegal guns come in all the time, but if we made them more illegal not only could gun runners do exactly what drug runners do, but hello, the drug runners could start running guns as well.

Tell me you never use the argument that legalizing alcohol brought down the mob and that's why the socons are so stupid for not legalizing drugs...

 

[kaz]

I disagree; here is why.

We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns. For better or worse; that will never change. Nothing says they have to be cheap.

It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.

Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc... and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.

Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation. It will take a very long time but it will work.

with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments. Nice work. Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote. Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them. Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that? We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue. The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry. The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment. Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.

Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation. That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs. Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves. These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people. If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine. That's your right. But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.

You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.

So what about answering my question this time?

Suppose we put a stiff tax on abortion. Is that Constitutional?

 

[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.

You are an absolutist, a delusional believer that there are absolutes in life. There are no absolutes, no absolutes in law (some people still drive over the posted speed limit), no absolutes in science (even Newton's Laws of Motion have a statistical basis), no absolutes in even perception of reality (learn about optical illusions, our perception is a reconstruction based on assumptions built into our brains.)

You are presenting, basically, a bullshit strawman argument.

1) What "absolute" argument are you talking about?

2) You don't know what a strawman is.

Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?

 

[itfitzme]

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.

You are an absolutist, a delusional believer that there are absolutes in life. There are no absolutes, no absolutes in law (some people still drive over the posted speed limit), no absolutes in science (even Newton's Laws of Motion have a statistical basis), no absolutes in even perception of reality (learn about optical illusions, our perception is a reconstruction based on assumptions built into our brains.)

You are presenting, basically, a bullshit strawman argument.

1) What "absolute" argument are you talking about?

2) You don't know what a strawman is.

Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?

The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence. Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.

Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.

If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.

Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.

In short, make guns less lethal.

In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts. Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths. But I doubt that. The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship. They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.

Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades. The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons. Blame them.

We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society. The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting". Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades. Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire? Really? Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?

 

[itfitzme]

Roughly translated, poor people will forfeit their right to self defence, hunting, firearms ownership in general, and rich folks will get all the guns. Again, its sad to see so many so willing to let others do their thinking for them.

Gee, you mean the poor can't afford everything they want? Call 60 Minutes...that's big news.

Once again for the slow and stupid. The Courts ruled that you can not punitively tax a right , so you can not do so on firearms without a new Supreme Court ruling, which will then open Voting up for punitive taxes again.

Do you have an actual reference for that? I tried googling "supreme court punitive tax a right" and got nothing relevant. And there is the simple fact that cigarettes are taxed up the wazzo, obviously punitively. Sin tax is the term.

So do you have a reference? I can't buy it unless we can cite a case. It just isn't making any sense. There has to be more to it than just a simple " The Courts ruled that you can not punitively tax a right". Seems to general. It makes sense in some regards, but in reality it isn't.

 

[kaz]

You are an absolutist, a delusional believer that there are absolutes in life. There are no absolutes, no absolutes in law (some people still drive over the posted speed limit), no absolutes in science (even Newton's Laws of Motion have a statistical basis), no absolutes in even perception of reality (learn about optical illusions, our perception is a reconstruction based on assumptions built into our brains.)

You are presenting, basically, a bullshit strawman argument.

1) What "absolute" argument are you talking about?

2) You don't know what a strawman is.

Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?

The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence. Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.

I'll show you a strawman, it's in red. No one said that but you. The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did. That was you, sweetie.

Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.

If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.

Did you get your good cry out, little girl? I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting. Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?

 

[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.

Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.

Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.

In short, make guns less lethal.

In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts. Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths. But I doubt that. The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship. They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.

Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades. The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons. Blame them.

We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society. The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting". Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades. Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire? Really? Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?

Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?

So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way? Say even on the same planes?

 

[Bern80]

Delusional.

Sure, "a more perfect union"... oh, but were idiots so it might need to be overthrown by violence.

Delusional.

Again since more government's have historically tended toward tyranny than not, who is more delusional here? Us who believe that people should have the right to fight tyrannical government or you who thinks tyranny can't happen here?

Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny. Not even the anti gun euro countries have. They should be the first right?

I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.

 

[ClosedCaption]

1) What "absolute" argument are you talking about?

2) You don't know what a strawman is.

Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?

The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence. Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.

I'll show you a strawman, it's in red. No one said that but you. The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did. That was you, sweetie.

Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.

If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.

Did you get your good cry out, little girl? I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting. Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?

@ Ifitzme

He did this little two step with me also. They will describe "ending all violence" to a tee. Then when you catch them they claim that in order to me ALL he has to specifically say the word "all".

He's been at it for at least 13 pages or more

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.

My plan is less criminals.

A: Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
B: Eliminate all criminal activities of the government. Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
C: End the war on Drugs. Duh.
D: End government managed welfare.
E: Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act. No job, no family, no assets, no ward? Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
F: Throw the insane into "homes" for the insane.

 

[itfitzme]

1) What "absolute" argument are you talking about?

2) You don't know what a strawman is.

Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?

The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence. Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.

I'll show you a strawman, it's in red. No one said that but you. The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did. That was you, sweetie.

Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.

If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.

Did you get your good cry out, little girl? I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting. Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?

Yeah, you did. That is exactly the implication of your post. Other people aren't as stupid as you want to believe. I know that living in the land of denial is a nice place for you, but no one else does.

 

[Brain357]

Again since more government's have historically tended toward tyranny than not, who is more delusional here? Us who believe that people should have the right to fight tyrannical government or you who thinks tyranny can't happen here?

Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny. Not even the anti gun euro countries have. They should be the first right?

I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.

Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny. Name some.