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

[M14 Shooter]

You do have an idea (note singular use of the word). In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists. This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your rightand can never be infringed.
Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.

Never mind that you have presented no sound argument to that effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL, you say "crazy right wing" but you state every opinion as a fact and it's all one direction. Own your crazy, Holmes

Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'. Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who should have have them.

I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem. Whenever I do so, please look it up here:

Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster

for example:

panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better

I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea,

Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.

OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.

How does that work? Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....

So...that is how they get them right now...right? True or False?

So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......

The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....

Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....

Or he just steals the gun.......

Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....

So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?

They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.

Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol

Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?

And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of a legal item has to go through a background check....

How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....

So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.

Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...

None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The guy buying fifty isn't using them, just selling them to the miscreants.

That's your bigoted presupposition.
Your bigoted presupposition isn't enough to limit the exercise of a right protected by the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You need to read without bias and with comprehension. I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead. We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there. What can you infer from that evidence?

A thinking person would infer nothing.
What do YOU infer?

 

[Wry Catcher]

He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started

Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.

Zimmerman was "evil?" Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.

Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy. But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"

Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.

He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,

So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight? The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life. No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.

Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.

So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?

You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.

You need to read without bias and with comprehension. I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead. We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there. What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?

It's in your own quote, liar. Then you tell Ray to "read with out bias and with comprehension?" Classic, can't make up the stupid that you actually are

Well asshole, that comment was my inference which I explained in another post. What part of F Off do you not understand. Stalking me is damn creepy and suggestive of someone whose beliefs have been successfully challenged.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You need to read without bias and with comprehension. I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead. We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there. What can you infer from that evidence?

A thinking person would infer nothing.
What do YOU infer?

That you're an obsessive and compulsive jerk. Something someone of average intelligence would have been able to infer from other comments have posted.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You do have an idea (note singular use of the word). In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists. This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your rightand can never be infringed.
Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.

Never mind that you have presented no sound argument to that effect.

As well as an obsessive and compulsive jerk you're dishonest to the bone.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You need to read without bias and with comprehension. I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead. We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there. What can you infer from that evidence?

A thinking person would infer nothing.
What do YOU infer?

That you're an obsessive and compulsive jerk.

Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty
So, again, what do YOU infer?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You do have an idea (note singular use of the word). In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists. This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your rightand can never be infringed.
Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.

Never mind that you have presented no sound argument to that effect.

As well as an obsessive and compulsive jerk you're dishonest to the bone.

We both know that when I ask you to cite those arguments, you will refuse to do so - because you know you cannot.
So..
Cite the post where you laid out a sound argument that there is a sound solution to mitigate gun violence in America
Cite the post where you laid out a sound argument that the right to arms can be constitutionally infringed.

 

[kaz]

Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.

Zimmerman was "evil?" Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.

Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy. But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"

Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,

Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?

Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak American? Syntax isn't your forte.

You didn't answer my question.
You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
Why?

He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit. We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black

 

[M14 Shooter]

Zimmerman was "evil?" Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.

Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy. But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"

Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,

Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?

Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak American? Syntax isn't your forte.

You didn't answer my question.
You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
Why?

He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit. We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black

Anti-gun loons see dead people as nothing but a means to an end - The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, says WC.

 

[2aguy]

The

Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved. Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.

How American of you. You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.

Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?

Guns have all sorts of safety features and when a defect is found they are very good at getting recall notices out. You should actually research the topic instead of relying on anti gun extremists to lie to you about the issue.

How many children died in 2013 because of gun accidents….69. I wouldn't exactly call that an extreme problem…in a country of over 320 million people with over 320 million guns in private hands and over 12.8 million people carrying guns for self defense…and only 69 children have died in gun accidents….

I would say that means the products are very safe, and gun owners are incredibly responsible.

The NRA is incredibly responsible…again….try not to focus on anti gun propaganda and seek the truth and reality about the topic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.

Not that you are capable of a meaningful response, but....
How do you make a gun safe from misuse, but still effective for its purpose?

 

[2aguy]

Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you

Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.

Zimmerman was "evil?" Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.

Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy. But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"

Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.

He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,

So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight? The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life. No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.

Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.

So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?

You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.

You need to read without bias and with comprehension. I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead. We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there. What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?

Actually, Zimmerman lived there, Martin was staying with his father's girlfriend. And you should have followed the trial…..Martin would be alive if he had just gone home….he doubled back to go after Zimmerman.

 

[kaz]

He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started

Zimmerman was "evil?" Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.

Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy. But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"

Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.

He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,

So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight? The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life. No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.

Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.

So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?

You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.

You need to read without bias and with comprehension. I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead. We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there. What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?

It's in your own quote, liar. Then you tell Ray to "read with out bias and with comprehension?" Classic, can't make up the stupid that you actually are

Well asshole, that comment was my inference which I explained in another post. What part of F Off do you not understand. Stalking me is damn creepy and suggestive of someone whose beliefs have been successfully challenged.

I see, so when you said Zimmerman started the fight, you explained how that meant you don't know Zimmerman started the fight. That clears it up now, thanks

 

[2aguy]

[

The
Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?

Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.

So why did gun makers put safety switches on guns if not as a safety feature?

To keep people from shooting themselves, not others.
The whole purpose for carrying a firearm is for protection. If I have to diddle with a trigger lock, retrieve it from a box or rely on some electronic sensor that recognizes my grip, I may die. Defeats the whole purpose.

You do have an idea (note singular use of the word). In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists. This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your right and can never be infringed.

Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.

In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.

Not true. When you catch someone breaking the law with a gun, lock them up. Instead of 3 years for armed robbery and letting them out in under 2…..lock them up for 10 years, no probation or time for good behavior. If they use a standard capacity magazine during the crime, throw in another 10 years. If you catch a felon with a gun….another 10 years.

See if that doesn't change how many thugs carry and use guns.

 

[francoHFW]

Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'. Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who should have have them.

I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem. Whenever I do so, please look it up here:

Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster

for example:

panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better

I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea,

Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.

How does that work? Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....

So...that is how they get them right now...right? True or False?

So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......

The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....

Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....

Or he just steals the gun.......

Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....

So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?

They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.

Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol

Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?

And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of a legal item has to go through a background check....

How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....

So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.

Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...

None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns.

It wouldn't hurt, and would certainly help with the nutjobs, and over time would do plenty nof good and save LOTS of lives. You chumps certainly hate anything like solutions...

 

[francoHFW]

[

The
Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?

Too bad your heroes the bought off Pubs block any such laws...oh you didn't hear about that- what a shocker...
Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.

So why did gun makers put safety switches on guns if not as a safety feature?

To keep people from shooting themselves, not others.
The whole purpose for carrying a firearm is for protection. If I have to diddle with a trigger lock, retrieve it from a box or rely on some electronic sensor that recognizes my grip, I may die. Defeats the whole purpose.

You do have an idea (note singular use of the word). In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists. This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your right and can never be infringed.

Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.

In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.

Not true. When you catch someone breaking the law with a gun, lock them up. Instead of 3 years for armed robbery and letting them out in under 2…..lock them up for 10 years, no probation or time for good behavior. If they use a standard capacity magazine during the crime, throw in another 10 years. If you catch a felon with a gun….another 10 years.

See if that doesn't change how many thugs carry and use guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.

They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.

Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol

Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?

And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of a legal item has to go through a background check....

How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....

So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.

Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...

None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns.

It wouldn't hurt, and would certainly help with the nutjobs, and over time would do plenty nof good and save LOTS of lives. You chumps certainly hate anything like solutions...

Like most other anti-gun loons, you cannot comprehend this simple truth:

- If a "solution" is not demonstrably effective at achieving a compelling state interest, it is impossible show that it is necessary to implement said 'solution'.
- If it is impossible to show the necessity of said 'solution, it is impossible to constitutionally justify the restrictions that 'solution' lays upon the rights of the law abiding.

That is:
None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns; that "It won't hurt" does not pass any level of constitutional scrutiny.

 

[kaz]

[

The
Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?

Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.

So why did gun makers put safety switches on guns if not as a safety feature?

To keep people from shooting themselves, not others.
The whole purpose for carrying a firearm is for protection. If I have to diddle with a trigger lock, retrieve it from a box or rely on some electronic sensor that recognizes my grip, I may die. Defeats the whole purpose.

You do have an idea (note singular use of the word). In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists. This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your right and can never be infringed.

Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.

In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.

Not true. When you catch someone breaking the law with a gun, lock them up. Instead of 3 years for armed robbery and letting them out in under 2…..lock them up for 10 years, no probation or time for good behavior. If they use a standard capacity magazine during the crime, throw in another 10 years. If you catch a felon with a gun….another 10 years.

See if that doesn't change how many thugs carry and use guns.

Doesn't matter if it changes them or not, they get locked up and stay there if it doesn't. That is how you keep guns out of the hands of criminals, keep the criminals in jail. Then let the rest of us decide how we want to defend ourselves in the meantime