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

[kaz]

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

​

 

[Wry Catcher]

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.

So you're saying that there is no way to establish guilt of a crime, until a crime has been committed?

Why... by God THAT'S BRILLIANT!

(Reader, there's just no better way to determine that a quality google search has been performed, than to observe a Relativist, using latin.)

Of course, that circumstance suggests that since crime happens as a consequence of a guilty mind, that there exist minds out their who have, are and will be acting out in in ways which threaten the lives of innocent people.

And despite YOU being the one to note this fact of nature, you seem to be indicating that people who arm themselves as a means to avoid becoming the innocent victim, are presenting themselves as guilty, despite the evidence YOU present, arguing that such is not the case, based upon millennia's experience which informs us that a guilty mind requires a guilty action.

Now, man's spirit was created in the image of God. Thus it falls to every man who lives free, thus who possesses the spirit of God, to defend his life and those of others around him; his family, friends and neighbors as he would defend his own life and that of God.

That human life which possesses God's spirit is precious, it follows that such is valuable beyond all else. Yet you're suggesting on the one hand that such is not the case, even as you come to lament 'killing', when all reason argues that killing, in and of itself is a necessity... as it sustains life where such is done to feed us and where such is done to defend innocent life.

So... where does it fit that 'killing' is bad, but not defending one's spirit filled life, is also bad; which is to say to take measures to defend innocent life through the ownership and effective use of a state of the art firearm?

Help a brother out here, will ya?

 

[kaz]

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

 

[kaz]

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.

So you're saying that there is no way to establish guilt of a crime, until a crime has been committed?

Why... by God THAT'S BRILLIANT!

Yes, I believe both right and left as well as libertarians and even anarchists universally consider Wry to be the brains of the site. Here is another exemplary reason why. He is the one who noticed the green in the grass and the blue in the sky

 

[2aguy]

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.

So you're saying that there is no way to establish guilt of a crime, until a crime has been committed?

Why... by God THAT'S BRILLIANT!

Yes, I believe both right and left as well as libertarians and even anarchists universally consider Wry to be the brains of the site. Here is another exemplary reason why. He is the one who noticed the green in the grass and the blue in the sky

Hey...for a lefty that is pretty good.....it takes year of exposure to conservative thought for a leftist to see that much truth and reality in the world........

 

[Wry Catcher]

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

==========================================================
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[2aguy]

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.

==========================================================
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do universal background checks work exactly...since right now the very techniques used to get past current, mandatory background checks will work on universal background checks the moment they go on line...

Straw purchases...get past all background checks
Stealing guns....gets past all background checks...

Those are the two ways criminals get the majority of all their illegal guns....

So...please explain the mechanics of universal background checks that will stop the two most popular ways that criminals get guns.....

Don't worry, none of the other gun grabbers were able to do it either......

 

[birddog]

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

I see you are frustrated because you are so wrong, you know you are wrong, but you are too biased or stupid to admit it!
Join the NRA and learn something, you ignoramus!



Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

 

[birddog]

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

I see you are frustrated because you are so wrong, you know you are wrong, but you are too biased or stupid to admit it!
Join the NRA and learn something, you ignoramus!



Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

You are frustrated by ignorance. Join the NRA and learn something! Geeez!

 

[kaz]

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

 

[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.

==========================================================
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that sarcasm?

 

[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.

==========================================================
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do universal background checks work exactly...since right now the very techniques used to get past current, mandatory background checks will work on universal background checks the moment they go on line...

Straw purchases...get past all background checks
Stealing guns....gets past all background checks...

Those are the two ways criminals get the majority of all their illegal guns....

So...please explain the mechanics of universal background checks that will stop the two most popular ways that criminals get guns.....

Don't worry, none of the other gun grabbers were able to do it either......

Pot is outright illegal and teenagers get all the pot they want. Background checks limit honest citizens from owning guns, not criminals, which is my whole point

 

[Wry Catcher]

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

 

[kaz]

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

And your theory is that one thing criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally. On the other hand, by definition honest citizens don't break the law. So what you have done, Holmes, is agree with my op. You only want to restrict gun ownership for honest citizens, LOL. Thanks for playing, but you lost. Here's our board game version to take home with you. Don't go away mad, just go away.

LOL, liberals, classic

 

[Wry Catcher]

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

And your theory is that one thing criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally. On the other hand, by definition honest citizens don't break the law. So what you have done, Holmes, is agree with my op. You only want to restrict gun ownership for honest citizens, LOL. Thanks for playing, but you lost. Here's our board game version to take home with you. Don't go away mad, just go away.

LOL, liberals, classic

My opinion included not a word which could be inferred by anyone who reads with comprehension that "criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally". That is one more logical fallacy (Straw Man), and I'm being kind. In fact it's a LIE.

Honest citizens break the law everyday (I hope that paradox isn't too abstract for you) and that is why we have penal codes. Speed and you get a ticket and a fine; steal and you get jail and a fine; sell a gun to an unlicensed person and you woujld lose your license and pay a fine.

I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens. I know that's not practical, not possible and I know the NRA and its members care only about their rights, not the rights of others; they will never stop falsely claiming the Second A. is sacrosanct. Heller was one vote short of proving this claim wrong.

 

[kaz]

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

And your theory is that one thing criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally. On the other hand, by definition honest citizens don't break the law. So what you have done, Holmes, is agree with my op. You only want to restrict gun ownership for honest citizens, LOL. Thanks for playing, but you lost. Here's our board game version to take home with you. Don't go away mad, just go away.

LOL, liberals, classic

My opinion included not a word which could be inferred by anyone who reads with comprehension that "criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally". That is one more logical fallacy (Straw Man), and I'm being kind. In fact it's a LIE.

Then your post was irrelevant since that is the subject of the thread. So what is the purpose of licensing guns if you are not claiming that will stop criminals from getting them exactly, Holmes?

Honest citizens break the law everyday (I hope that paradox isn't too abstract for you) and that is why we have penal codes. Speed and you get a ticket and a fine; steal and you get jail and a fine; sell a gun to an unlicensed person and you woujld lose your license and pay a fine.

What a dumb ass. Word parsing is such a great argument ... not ...

I would like to see

guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens. I know that's not practical, not possible and I know the NRA and its members care only about their rights, not the rights of others; they will never stop falsely claiming the Second A. is sacrosanct. Heller was one vote short of proving this claim wrong.

Right, and your plan is to only restrict ownership for honest, sane and sober citizens

 

[Wry Catcher]

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

And your theory is that one thing criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally. On the other hand, by definition honest citizens don't break the law. So what you have done, Holmes, is agree with my op. You only want to restrict gun ownership for honest citizens, LOL. Thanks for playing, but you lost. Here's our board game version to take home with you. Don't go away mad, just go away.

LOL, liberals, classic

My opinion included not a word which could be inferred by anyone who reads with comprehension that "criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally". That is one more logical fallacy (Straw Man), and I'm being kind. In fact it's a LIE.

Then your post was irrelevant since that is the subject of the thread. So what is the purpose of licensing guns if you are not claiming that will stop criminals from getting them exactly, Holmes?

Honest citizens break the law everyday (I hope that paradox isn't too abstract for you) and that is why we have penal codes. Speed and you get a ticket and a fine; steal and you get jail and a fine; sell a gun to an unlicensed person and you woujld lose your license and pay a fine.

What a dumb ass. Word parsing is such a great argument ... not ...

I would like to see

guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens. I know that's not practical, not possible and I know the NRA and its members care only about their rights, not the rights of others; they will never stop falsely claiming the Second A. is sacrosanct. Heller was one vote short of proving this claim wrong.

Right, and your plan is to only restrict ownership for honest, sane and sober citizens

My plan was to demonstrate the fallacy of the loaded question. Your efforts to rebut my claim - easily verified by reading the link supplied - was to post several common logical fallacies (Straw Man, Red Herring and Ad Hominem).

I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens. That would include the vast majority of citizens. Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh? If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?