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

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins.

The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.

Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.

Oh, he knows that, his refrigerator is full of carcasses. He just looks down on killing them himself. There's a word for Polly. It starts with h. It ends with ypocrite

That's part of it. The other part is that a deer is so cute, you know, Bambi.

If a deer had a head like a giant possum, they would say kill the bastards.

Maybe it's where he lives, I don't know. But over here, everybody knows somebody that accidentally hit a deer while driving if they did not hit one themselves. They cause a lot of accidents and auto body damage. The deer over populate, and then there's not enough food for them all. The ones that don't eat get weak and don't think straight. They end up jumping in front of cars and trucks.

 

[2aguy]

You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them. But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....

LIAR. The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question. Something you and too many others cannot understand.

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR! But let's play this game.

How do we keep drunks out of cars?

How do we keep molesters from molesting?

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?

How do we keep minors from using drugs?

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.

You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......

In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......

Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....

What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.

You're an ignoramus. I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.

In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD. Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.

I doubt your abject ignorance is willful. I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.

You are the stupid one......you listed everything MADD has done...they have increased penalties, they require breathaylzers......

But explain to me anything that MADD got passed that effects anyone....before they drive drunk. Can you do that?

I Read your list, several times....and not one of the things they helped get passed into law effects anyone who does not drive drunk, gets arrested and is found guilty.

Everyone of the things you want to do to law abiding gun owners is done to them before they break the law.

Of course, you want to increase the chances they break the law by making them get licenses......

But MADD does not insist that everyone who wants to drink get a license to do it....do they.

MADD does not insist that every American who drives must have a breathalyzer in their car...in case they are going to break the law.....

You are too stupid to realize that you want guns and gun owners handled differently from any other activity that might end up in a crime.....

Do you want all people who use electronic devices to get a license....so we know who they are......they could be buying a computor to engage in identity theft, child pornography, human trafficking, cyber stalking, cyber bullying....right?

Should all electronic devices be registered to the individual who is using them with the local, state and federal law enforcement agencies....so we know who they are?

Should all bottles of alcohol be registered to the buyer....in case they sell it to minors...so we know who sold it?

You are the idiot.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR!

Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea

But let's play this game.

Challenge accepted

According to you?

How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people

How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office

How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? - It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have. Sure, Holmes

Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.

My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.

Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't. Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.

I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times. You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.

One more time.

• A license is required to own an automatic weapon. True or false?
• Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime. True or False?
  
• A license is required in every state to drive a car. True or false?
• Driving without a license is an infraction. True or False?
  
• Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor. True or False?
  
• A license is required to hunt or fish. True or false?
• Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime. True or False?
• Poaching is a crime? True or False?

For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?

All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).

Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to anyone who wants them? Yes or No?

I say no. So does the NRA.

I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.

The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.

For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?

If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and jailed...right now under existing law. True or False?

If a felon is caught in possession of a gun, in their home or on their person, they can be arrested on the spot and taken to jail...right now under existing law. True Or False?

If the above two statements are true....(hint: Yes, they are both true.) Then why do we need to license gun owners?

Still waiting for an answer to that very easy question.

More ignorance. Both are true, however. How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun? How many convicted felons kill their wife/SO, both acts with the same gun. How many non felons, non criminals do so?

How many children play with a gun and die, or kill a friend or sibling?

Q. How do we control non felons, non criminals from acts of violence with a gun?

A. You and others of your kind (the gun obsessed) have no idea and don't want anyone to come up with ideas which might mitigate such violence. IMO because your right to own a gun is more important than some child being killed by a gun. There is no other explanation as to why pages and pages of are filled with the right to own a gun, and not a word as to the responsibilities of ownership.

 

[Wry Catcher]

LIAR. The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question. Something you and too many others cannot understand.

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR! But let's play this game.

How do we keep drunks out of cars?

How do we keep molesters from molesting?

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?

How do we keep minors from using drugs?

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.

You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......

In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......

Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....

What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.

You're an ignoramus. I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.

In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD. Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.

I doubt your abject ignorance is willful. I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.

You are the stupid one......you listed everything MADD has done...they have increased penalties, they require breathaylzers......

But explain to me anything that MADD got passed that effects anyone....before they drive drunk. Can you do that?

I Read your list, several times....and not one of the things they helped get passed into law effects anyone who does not drive drunk, gets arrested and is found guilty.

Everyone of the things you want to do to law abiding gun owners is done to them before they break the law.

Of course, you want to increase the chances they break the law by making them get licenses......

But MADD does not insist that everyone who wants to drink get a license to do it....do they.

MADD does not insist that every American who drives must have a breathalyzer in their car...in case they are going to break the law.....

You are too stupid to realize that you want guns and gun owners handled differently from any other activity that might end up in a crime.....

Do you want all people who use electronic devices to get a license....so we know who they are......they could be buying a computor to engage in identity theft, child pornography, human trafficking, cyber stalking, cyber bullying....right?

Should all electronic devices be registered to the individual who is using them with the local, state and federal law enforcement agencies....so we know who they are?

Should all bottles of alcohol be registered to the buyer....in case they sell it to minors...so we know who sold it?

You are the idiot.....

Well, you're too dumb to get it, and BTW, you're an asshole too.

 

[asaratis]

Describe these people you call obsessed? I described myself. Am I one of them?

How would you describe obsessed? Do you need a 100 guns?

The Constitution does not say that Citizen Doe has a right to bear a firearm. It says that Citizen Doe has a right to bear arms. (plural).

A collector I know has over 2000 working firearms....and I'm guessing a long ton of ammunition. He can bear how ever many of them he is able to carry....all at one time...if he chooses. I have only 4 pistols at this time. I carry one at a time, sometimes two...with extra magazines. My concealed-carry permit allows me to hide them on my person...as long as I have the permit also on my person. It also allows me to carry long knives, swords, spears, cross bows, spiked clubs and the like. It does not allow me to carry live hand grenades or land mines.

Law abiding citizens with guns, concealed or openly carried....should not be feared. They should be welcomed....as should the LEOs that we seem to expect to protect us at all times.

They are here to protect us from criminal activity. They are here to enforce the laws by arresting (stopping) those that break the laws, issuing citations to court for minor infractions, arresting and detaining those that commit major crimes, testifying in court regarding the crime.

It is ludicrous that the BLM idiots have ratcheted up unwarranted fear and hatred of the police. I don't generally quote statistics for the sake of argument, but I heard recently from an extremely reliable source that LESS THAN ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT OF ALL ARRESTS BY LEO ACROSS THE NATION RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE PERSON ARRESTED. That is <(less than)0.1%!!!!! That is less than ONE OUT OF EVERY THOUSAND ARRESTED!!!!

Blacks need to fear other blacks a heap more than they fear the police!

 

[asaratis]

The subject of the thread isn't about gays.

No. It's your inconsistency.

It's not that either. And seeing the other side's view is good for the cause. Ignoring it, will destroy the cause.

That makes no sense. They aren't changing their view and they don't have the legitimate right to deny us Constitutional rights. Why do we need to understand our oppressors?

One should be well aware of what one's opponent thinks. I often read books supporting atheism just to see how the fools that write them think.

 

[asaratis]

The subject of the thread isn't about gays.

No. It's your inconsistency.

It's not that either. And seeing the other side's view is good for the cause. Ignoring it, will destroy the cause.

That makes no sense. They aren't changing their view and they don't have the legitimate right to deny us Constitutional rights. Why do we need to understand our oppressors?

Being a gun-obsessed asshole won't help the cause. It'll only hurt it.

Being an asshole-obsessed asshole does nothing for the cause either. Only makes your butt hurt....or your dick smell like shit for a while.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed

It wasn't sarcasm, that is actually your solution to those problems, punish the people who don't do the bad things and do nothing about those who do. Straight up, Holmes

Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to anyone who wants them? Yes or No?

I say no. So does the NRA.

So do I and I never said otherwise. In fact, I keep saying it gives the right of ownership to those ... who haven't had their Constitutional rights removed by due process of law. I've told you this repeatedly, how stupid are you? It isn't that hard to grasp. It's actually fairly simple

I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands

Doesn't work, try reading my OP post and answering the question

The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.

If that is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then why can teenagers buy all the pot they want now when it's actually illegal?

Having a license to own a gun, is no more of a punishment than having a license to drive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins.

The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.

Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.

Oh, he knows that, his refrigerator is full of carcasses. He just looks down on killing them himself. There's a word for Polly. It starts with h. It ends with ypocrite

That's part of it. The other part is that a deer is so cute, you know, Bambi.

If a deer had a head like a giant possum, they would say kill the bastards.

Maybe it's where he lives, I don't know. But over here, everybody knows somebody that accidentally hit a deer while driving if they did not hit one themselves. They cause a lot of accidents and auto body damage. The deer over populate, and then there's not enough food for them all. The ones that don't eat get weak and don't think straight. They end up jumping in front of cars and trucks.

From the POV of the deer, it's the people who have overpopulated their environment. Callous conservatives don't give a shit about anyone or anything but themselves.

 

[2aguy]

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR!

Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea

But let's play this game.

Challenge accepted

According to you?

How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people

How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office

How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? - It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have. Sure, Holmes

Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.

My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.

Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't. Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.

I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times. You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.

One more time.

• A license is required to own an automatic weapon. True or false?
• Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime. True or False?
  
• A license is required in every state to drive a car. True or false?
• Driving without a license is an infraction. True or False?
  
• Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor. True or False?
  
• A license is required to hunt or fish. True or false?
• Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime. True or False?
• Poaching is a crime? True or False?

For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?

All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).

Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to anyone who wants them? Yes or No?

I say no. So does the NRA.

I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.

The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.

For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?

If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and jailed...right now under existing law. True or False?

If a felon is caught in possession of a gun, in their home or on their person, they can be arrested on the spot and taken to jail...right now under existing law. True Or False?

If the above two statements are true....(hint: Yes, they are both true.) Then why do we need to license gun owners?

Still waiting for an answer to that very easy question.

More ignorance. Both are true, however. How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun? How many convicted felons kill their wife/SO, both acts with the same gun. How many non felons, non criminals do so?

How many children play with a gun and die, or kill a friend or sibling?

Q. How do we control non felons, non criminals from acts of violence with a gun?

A. You and others of your kind (the gun obsessed) have no idea and don't want anyone to come up with ideas which might mitigate such violence. IMO because your right to own a gun is more important than some child being killed by a gun. There is no other explanation as to why pages and pages of are filled with the right to own a gun, and not a word as to the responsibilities of ownership.

How many children play with a gun and die, or kill a friend or sibling?

In 2013....69 out of a country of 320 million.

 

[Ernie S.]

I would suspect there are a number of laws regarding automobiles and drivers, but maybe it would be a good idea to issue a gun permit to own and operate a gun, and maybe the issue would have to have insurance and so forth. I think you're on to something here. Of course, the analogy is bad but thanks for trying.

Of course the analogy is bad. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say your right to drive a car shall not be infringed.

 

[2aguy]

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR!

Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea

But let's play this game.

Challenge accepted

According to you?

How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people

How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office

How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? - It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have. Sure, Holmes

Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.

My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.

Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't. Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.

I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times. You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.

One more time.

• A license is required to own an automatic weapon. True or false?
• Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime. True or False?
  
• A license is required in every state to drive a car. True or false?
• Driving without a license is an infraction. True or False?
  
• Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor. True or False?
  
• A license is required to hunt or fish. True or false?
• Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime. True or False?
• Poaching is a crime? True or False?

For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?

All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).

Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to anyone who wants them? Yes or No?

I say no. So does the NRA.

I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.

The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.

For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?

If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and jailed...right now under existing law. True or False?

If a felon is caught in possession of a gun, in their home or on their person, they can be arrested on the spot and taken to jail...right now under existing law. True Or False?

If the above two statements are true....(hint: Yes, they are both true.) Then why do we need to license gun owners?

Still waiting for an answer to that very easy question.

More ignorance. Both are true, however. How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun? How many convicted felons kill their wife/SO, both acts with the same gun. How many non felons, non criminals do so?

How many children play with a gun and die, or kill a friend or sibling?

Q. How do we control non felons, non criminals from acts of violence with a gun?

A. You and others of your kind (the gun obsessed) have no idea and don't want anyone to come up with ideas which might mitigate such violence. IMO because your right to own a gun is more important than some child being killed by a gun. There is no other explanation as to why pages and pages of are filled with the right to own a gun, and not a word as to the responsibilities of ownership.

You still don't get it. Please tell me how many MADD policies that they have turned into laws effect people who have not been arrested or caught drunk driving....you used them as an example...please explain......

We have ideas on how to stop gun crime....that isn't what you care about, you just care that normal, law abiding citizens want to own guns....so you focus your energy on them, not criminals.

Want to stop gun crime....lock up people who use guns to commit crimes....

How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun?

Thanks for asking.....most of the gun crime is committed by repeat offenders, not law abiding citizens who all of a sudden decide to knock over a liquor store.

In Richmond, California, 17 criminals were responsible for 76% of all the shootings.....80% of gun crime in Chicago is because of gangs. So no, law abiding citizens are not the problem.

There is no other explanation as to why pages and pages of are filled with the right to own a gun, and not a word as to the responsibilities of ownership

That one is easy too.......if you own a gun and use it to commit a crime...you are arrested....

If you cause harm with your gun, you are sued......

What more is there to say moron.

You and others of your kind (the gun obsessed) have no idea and don't want anyone to come up with ideas which might mitigate such violence.

We have, it is called putting gun criminals in prison for a long time, the only way to stop them....but prosecutors and judges seem to want them back on the street...why is that?

 

[2aguy]

Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed

It wasn't sarcasm, that is actually your solution to those problems, punish the people who don't do the bad things and do nothing about those who do. Straight up, Holmes

Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to anyone who wants them? Yes or No?

I say no. So does the NRA.

So do I and I never said otherwise. In fact, I keep saying it gives the right of ownership to those ... who haven't had their Constitutional rights removed by due process of law. I've told you this repeatedly, how stupid are you? It isn't that hard to grasp. It's actually fairly simple

I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands

Doesn't work, try reading my OP post and answering the question

The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.

If that is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then why can teenagers buy all the pot they want now when it's actually illegal?

Having a license to own a gun, is no more of a punishment than having a license to drive.

There is no need to license gun owners.....again.....what does it do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...you still have not explained that.

Again...

If someone commits a crime with a gun they can be arrested, right now, with existing laws. True or False?

In such a case there is no need to license a law abiding gun owner. True or False?

If a convicted criminal is caught in the mere possession of a gun they can be arrested on the spot, right now, with existing laws. True or False?

In such a case there is no need to license a law abiding gun owner. True or False?

 

[2aguy]

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR! But let's play this game.

How do we keep drunks out of cars?

How do we keep molesters from molesting?

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?

How do we keep minors from using drugs?

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.

You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......

In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......

Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....

What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.

You're an ignoramus. I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.

In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD. Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.

I doubt your abject ignorance is willful. I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.

You are the stupid one......you listed everything MADD has done...they have increased penalties, they require breathaylzers......

But explain to me anything that MADD got passed that effects anyone....before they drive drunk. Can you do that?

I Read your list, several times....and not one of the things they helped get passed into law effects anyone who does not drive drunk, gets arrested and is found guilty.

Everyone of the things you want to do to law abiding gun owners is done to them before they break the law.

Of course, you want to increase the chances they break the law by making them get licenses......

But MADD does not insist that everyone who wants to drink get a license to do it....do they.

MADD does not insist that every American who drives must have a breathalyzer in their car...in case they are going to break the law.....

You are too stupid to realize that you want guns and gun owners handled differently from any other activity that might end up in a crime.....

Do you want all people who use electronic devices to get a license....so we know who they are......they could be buying a computor to engage in identity theft, child pornography, human trafficking, cyber stalking, cyber bullying....right?

Should all electronic devices be registered to the individual who is using them with the local, state and federal law enforcement agencies....so we know who they are?

Should all bottles of alcohol be registered to the buyer....in case they sell it to minors...so we know who sold it?

You are the idiot.....

Well, you're too dumb to get it, and BTW, you're an asshole too.

Says the asswipe.

Allow me to translate your answer to "normal speak."

Translation begins:

Wow...2aguy showed that my ideas are really stupid. And really, they actually are. But in order to be ready to put a ban or confiscate in place.....after we hopefully get a really big death count in the next mass shooting, we need to have those gun people's names and addresses recorded. That way we don't have to waste time first getting them licensed, and then imposing the ban or confiscating their weapons. That takes too much time, and they can get their lawyers involved before we can get their guns.....

Gee wiz...that 2aguy is really, really sharp...he sees that I am an idiot and keeps beating me with his facts....

End Translation.

 

[2aguy]

On the nature of killers....

Public Health Pot Shots

These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.

Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

 

[2aguy]

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR!

Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea

But let's play this game.

Challenge accepted

According to you?

How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people

How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office

How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? - It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have. Sure, Holmes

Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.

My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.

Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't. Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.

I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times. You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.

One more time.

• A license is required to own an automatic weapon. True or false?
• Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime. True or False?
  
• A license is required in every state to drive a car. True or false?
• Driving without a license is an infraction. True or False?
  
• Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor. True or False?
  
• A license is required to hunt or fish. True or false?
• Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime. True or False?
• Poaching is a crime? True or False?

For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?

All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).

Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to anyone who wants them? Yes or No?

I say no. So does the NRA.

I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.

The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.

For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?

If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and jailed...right now under existing law. True or False?

If a felon is caught in possession of a gun, in their home or on their person, they can be arrested on the spot and taken to jail...right now under existing law. True Or False?

If the above two statements are true....(hint: Yes, they are both true.) Then why do we need to license gun owners?

Still waiting for an answer to that very easy question.

More ignorance. Both are true, however. How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun? How many convicted felons kill their wife/SO, both acts with the same gun. How many non felons, non criminals do so?

How many children play with a gun and die, or kill a friend or sibling?

Q. How do we control non felons, non criminals from acts of violence with a gun?

A. You and others of your kind (the gun obsessed) have no idea and don't want anyone to come up with ideas which might mitigate such violence. IMO because your right to own a gun is more important than some child being killed by a gun. There is no other explanation as to why pages and pages of are filled with the right to own a gun, and not a word as to the responsibilities of ownership.

Here is your answer to these questions asswipe...

How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun? How many convicted felons kill their wife/SO, both acts with the same gun. How many non felons, non criminals do so?

Public Health Pot Shots

These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.

Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.

 

[Ernie S.]

You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them. But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....

LIAR. The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question. Something you and too many others cannot understand.

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR! But let's play this game.

How do we keep drunks out of cars?

How do we keep molesters from molesting?

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?

How do we keep minors from using drugs?

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.

You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......

In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......

Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....

What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.

You're an ignoramus. I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.

In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD. Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.

I doubt your abject ignorance is willful. I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.

While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?

 

[Wry Catcher]

LIAR. The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question. Something you and too many others cannot understand.

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR! But let's play this game.

How do we keep drunks out of cars?

How do we keep molesters from molesting?

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?

How do we keep minors from using drugs?

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.

You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......

In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......

Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....

What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.

You're an ignoramus. I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.

In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD. Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.

I doubt your abject ignorance is willful. I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.

While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?

If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can reduce gun violence, it will cut the cost to local government. When a gun is used, even by a law abiding citizen such as you, and a person is wounded or killed there is a cost in terms of first response personnel, hospitals, investigators, the prosecutors office and potentially the local jail, the courts, the public defender and probation; a cost paid by the taxpayer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

LIAR! But let's play this game.

How do we keep drunks out of cars?

How do we keep molesters from molesting?

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?

How do we keep minors from using drugs?

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.

You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......

In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......

Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....

What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.

You're an ignoramus. I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.

In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD. Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.

I doubt your abject ignorance is willful. I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.

While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?

If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .

That's the point. There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything. One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good. It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.

 

[Wry Catcher]

LIAR! But let's play this game.

How do we keep drunks out of cars?

How do we keep molesters from molesting?

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?

How do we keep minors from using drugs?

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?

Think about it, if you can. Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.

You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......

In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......

Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....

What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.

You're an ignoramus. I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.

In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD. Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.

I doubt your abject ignorance is willful. I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.

While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?

If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .

That's the point. There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything. One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good. It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.