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

[kaz]

Their is an active militia and an inactive militia. The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft. Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns ain't members.

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes. Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational. If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great. And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.

The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.

This is a lie.
Disagree?
There's a link in my sig to that very conversation, the one you tucked tail and ran from.

The link proves you are a liar, making an allegation is all you've done. I'm beginning to believe you're dumb enough to have convinced yourself you're not lying. That's pitiful.

 

[Ernie S.]

Restricting my right to bear arms, Kaz's or M 14's won't do a damned thing to cut down on gun deaths. It is not the gun that kills, it is the criminal with a gun, knife, poison, an STD or a motor vehicle that kills.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes. Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational. If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great. And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.

The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.

This is a lie.
Disagree?
There's a link in my sig to that very conversation, the one you tucked tail and ran from.

The link proves you are a liar....

Another lie.
You've lost, you know it and you hate it.
But, that's all on you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Restricting my right to bear arms, Kaz's or M 14's won't do a damned thing to cut down on gun deaths. It is not the gun that kills, it is the criminal with a gun, knife, poison, an STD or a motor vehicle that kills.

^^^^
Far too simple and correct for anti-gun loons to understand.

 

[kaz]

Well, I'm not a liberal

Rim shot!

What's the punch line?

 

[bendog]

Well, I'm not a liberal

Rim shot!

What's the punch line?

I'm also not a RW Nutcase. Look in mirror kaz

 

[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.

Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes. Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational. If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great. And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.

The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns. They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.

You've offered zero in terms of rational ways to "control guns." you've only continued to insist that we only focus on restricting guns for law abiding citizens

 

[kaz]

Well, I'm not a liberal

Rim shot!

What's the punch line?

I'm also not a RW Nutcase. Look in mirror kaz

I'm not an RW at all, so how does that make sense?

you argue for nothing but left wing politics and the Democratic party, so how does that make sense either.

You may want to stop at the gas station and buy a map. Just a suggestion

 

[Ernie S.]

Well, I'm not a liberal

Rim shot!

What's the punch line?

I'm also not a RW Nutcase. Look in mirror kaz

Why do you call yourself Bendog? Is it because bendoverandkissliberalass was too long?

 

[bendog]

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.

Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes. Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational. If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great. And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.

The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns. They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.

I don't believe the govt has any power to "control" guns. It's clear that even conservative supreme courts, like this one, believe the government has the power to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons. Both the Miller and Heller decisions affirm the govt has the power to not allow individuals to buy anything they desire, and fully automatic weapons can be "banned." The recent Scotus case on the SF law of securing firearms in the home didn't please many gun owners. I was more ambivalent. I don't see why I should have to lock up or carry on my person guns in my home, because I don't have kids at home. My dog is not likely to accidentally shoot anyone. But, obviously, some adults with kids are irresponsible.

But, it's statistically proven that in crime fighting terms, strict and strictly enforced enhanced sentencing for fire arm crimes are effective. No one should have a problem with that.

Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on. Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm. The opposition to that cannot be termed rational. And it's based on a paranoia that the "gummit is keeping a list" but of course few seemed concerned when the "gummit was keeping a list of their telephone calls." And, even then, we found a way to prevent that. Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting. But if they'd prevent one mass shooting .... imagine the horror of someone shooting every kid in a kindergarten ... or a bible study group.

We don't even identify all the kids in school who have dyslexia or ADD, let alone identify teenagers who are becoming schizophrenic. I'd think this problem is even larger than background checks, but it would be a lot harder to solve.

 

[bendog]

Well, I'm not a liberal

Rim shot!

What's the punch line?

I'm also not a RW Nutcase. Look in mirror kaz

I'm not an RW at all, so how does that make sense?

you argue for nothing but left wing politics and the Democratic party, so how does that make sense either.

You may want to stop at the gas station and buy a map. Just a suggestion

yes you are, but you are not 100% RW nutter on everything, nor am I liberal on anything, but basically you told me to fck off, so I returned the favor.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Their is an active militia and an inactive militia. The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft. Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns ain't members.

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes. Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational. If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great. And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.

The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns. They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.

I don't believe the govt has any power to "control" guns. It's clear that even conservative supreme courts, like this one, believe the government has the power to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons. Both the Miller and Heller decisions affirm the govt has the power to not allow individuals to buy anything they desire, and fully automatic weapons can be "banned." The recent Scotus case on the SF law of securing firearms in the home didn't please many gun owners. I was more ambivalent. I don't see why I should have to lock up or carry on my person guns in my home, because I don't have kids at home. My dog is not likely to accidentally shoot anyone. But, obviously, some adults with kids are irresponsible.

But, it's statistically proven that in crime fighting terms, strict and strictly enforced enhanced sentencing for fire arm crimes are effective. No one should have a problem with that.

Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on. Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm. The opposition to that cannot be termed rational. And it's based on a paranoia that the "gummit is keeping a list" but of course few seemed concerned when the "gummit was keeping a list of their telephone calls." And, even then, we found a way to prevent that. Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting. But if they'd prevent one mass shooting .... imagine the horror of someone shooting every kid in a kindergarten ... or a bible study group.

We don't even identify all the kids in school who have dyslexia or ADD, let alone identify teenagers who are becoming schizophrenic. I'd think this problem is even larger than background checks, but it would be a lot harder to solve.

Thanks for a thoughtful post on this important issue.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes. Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational. If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great. And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.

The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns. They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.

You've offered zero in terms of rational ways to "control guns." you've only continued to insist that we only focus on restricting guns for law abiding citizens

How have I focused on restricting guns for law abiding citizens?

How is suggesting that the 10th Amendment be applied allowing each state to determine if gun owners or those who want to possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed restricts gun ownership by "law abiding citizens"?

Leaving out the usual Second Amendment default opinion, how is that more restrictive than requiring a person who has voted all of his or her life a special ID?

 

[bendog]

Their is an active militia and an inactive militia. The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft. Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns ain't members.

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

That's true. I do have an issue with the recent decision to not take up the SF law that mandated guns in homes be locked up or carried on the person. The fed court that upheld it focused on the fact that there are gun lock boxes that can be easily opened if you need to defend your home, and that is true. But, not all homes have kids, and not all people can afford lock boxes ... while an old used .38 is cheap and pretty effective. I'd like to have seen how the scotus squared Heller with the SF law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, I'm not a liberal

Rim shot!

What's the punch line?

I'm also not a RW Nutcase. Look in mirror kaz

Why do you call yourself Bendog? Is it because bendoverandkissliberalass was too long?

This ^^^ maybe one of Ernie'S most thoughtful posts ever.

 

[Ernie S.]

 

[kaz]

Their is an active militia and an inactive militia. The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft. Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns ain't members.

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

 

[The Rabbi]

Their is an active militia and an inactive militia. The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft. Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns ain't members.

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.