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

[Slyhunter]

To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Only to punish people? Is that your final answer?

Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?

licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.

Licensing does mean you can't buy or sell a gun without one. I thought that was clear. If you own a gun it does prevent you from selling it or buying one without a license.

If you own a gun now, it would be unconstitutional to charge you with having a gun and no license. Isn't that obvious?

It would also be unconstitutional to prevent them from buying a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nobody needs a hand gun

Prove this to be true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
So why have laws?

To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Only to punish people? Is that your final answer?

Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.

"Limits"
I used the word "limits".
Everything you have proposed further limits on the rights of the law abiding.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns

Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?

Both are unnecessary preconditions to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; they infringe upon the right to arms exactly as much as they infringe upon the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, and the right to an abortion.

Never mind that you know you have no capacity to soundly show that either are necessary.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Slyhunter]

require a License to speak, to preach, or to inform.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Only to punish people? Is that your final answer?

Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?

licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.

Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms? That's funny. I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition. It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.

If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.

I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.

What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?

It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.

Huh, why would I or anyone require someone who has no interest in owning or possessing a gun a license?

 

[Wry Catcher]

No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
So why have laws?

To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Only to punish people? Is that your final answer?

Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.

"Limits"
I used the word "limits".
Everything you have proposed further limits on the rights of the law abiding.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns

Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?

Both are unnecessary preconditions to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; they infringe upon the right to arms exactly as much as they infringe upon the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, and the right to an abortion.

Never mind that you know you have no capacity to soundly show that either are necessary.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Well, I suppose I'm willing to agree we disagree. Too bad you're not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thought I would share some local news from here in Cleveland. Since it fits the topic, I thought some might be interested:

I-Team: gun arrest doesn’t always mean jail time

POSTED 6:40 PM, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015, BY ED GALLEK, UPDATED AT 07:06PM, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH - The FOX 8 I-TEAM has found getting busted with a gun often does not mean you will get locked up for punishment.

Our investigation has found many convicts facing gun charges get probation.

The I-TEAM reviewed 90 cases in Cuyahoga County from 2014. We specifically looked at cases with the most serious charge being for a concealed weapon or having a weapon as a felon or improper handling of a gun. We did not look at cases involving a gun used to rob or shoot someone.

In the cases we checked, about half of those facing charges got probation. Only about a third got locked up, and some only got time served for a few days spent in jail while under investigation.

The I-TEAM also found some of the people getting probation for gun charges have been busted for trouble on your streets before. Or, others ended up wanted by authorities after getting probation for a gun.

The Cleveland Police Union President says officers get frustrated. Loomis said, “Yeah, we got a gun off the street…but is that the only goal here? They can easily go get another one.”

Judge Nancy Russo points out prosecutors often make deals with suspects and that limits what judges can do at sentencing. Russo said, “Most of these cases come in as plea bargains. So if the case comes in at one charge, but the prosecutor decides to plea bargain, at that time the judge must sentence only on what the plea bargain is.”

In fact, the I-TEAM has noticed many of these cases involved plea bargains or reduced gun charges.

The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office points out that no one charged in these cases gets a gun back.

We’ve learned county prosecutors are reviewing how these cases move through court.

I-Team: gun arrest doesn't always mean jail time

 

[Wry Catcher]

Only to punish people? Is that your final answer?

Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?

licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.

Licensing does mean you can't buy or sell a gun without one. I thought that was clear. If you own a gun it does prevent you from selling it or buying one without a license.

If you own a gun now, it would be unconstitutional to charge you with having a gun and no license. Isn't that obvious?

It would also be unconstitutional to prevent them from buying a gun.

So you believe. Have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Slyhunter]

Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?

licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.

Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms? That's funny. I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition. It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.

If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.

I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.

What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?

It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.

Huh, why would I or anyone require someone who has no interest in owning or possessing a gun a license?

Why would you violate the second amendment and refuse to allow someone to own/buy a gun who doesn't have a license?

 

[Jarlaxle]

After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.

OK, then: kill yourself.

I don't hide in trees, dressed in camo head to toe, waiting for a poor defenseless animal to walk by so i can brutally murder it. That's all you. Y'all are sick *****. The world really would be a better place if we had more deers, and less of you camo-wearing human wastes.

I have never hunted in my life and have no interest in hunting. Would you like to jam your OTHER foot in your mouth now?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Obviously Apples & Oranges. My advice would be to avoid selling guns to neighbors and acquaintances. Unless you do the proper due diligence.

Much easier to make sure any gun I sell is sold to someone who does not KNOW who I am. First names only, meet at a neutral location, contact only through a throwaway cell phone bought with cash. Maybe rent a car or van so the guy doesn't know what state I live in.

Selling guns is about to become an even riskier business. The loopholes are being closed.

Assumes facts not in evidence. (In other words: you are pulling the "facts" out of your sphincter.)

Be very careful who you sell firearms to. You will be held accountable.

Did you not read the post you quoted, then?

 

[Jarlaxle]

After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.

OK, then: kill yourself.

I don't hide in trees, dressed in camo head to toe, waiting for a poor defenseless animal to walk by so i can brutally murder it. That's all you. Y'all are sick *****. The world really would be a better place if we had more deers, and less of you camo-wearing human wastes.

I choose the deers. The world will be better off. You dipshits serve no purpose. May an enormous antler find your anal cavity very soon.

Talking to yourself is evidence of mental illness.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?

licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.

Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms? That's funny. I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition. It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.

If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.

I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.

What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?

It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.

Huh, why would I or anyone require someone who has no interest in owning or possessing a gun a license?

Why would you violate the second amendment and refuse to allow someone to own/buy a gun who doesn't have a license?

Would you have sold a gun to Dylann Roof, James Holmes or Adam Lanza? If a license were required would any of them passed the background check?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?

licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.

Licensing does mean you can't buy or sell a gun without one. I thought that was clear. If you own a gun it does prevent you from selling it or buying one without a license.

If you own a gun now, it would be unconstitutional to charge you with having a gun and no license. Isn't that obvious?

It would also be unconstitutional to prevent them from buying a gun.

So you believe. Have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, but I could have...if I had started the process today, I could have had it by-at the latest-Thursday.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Would you have sold a gun to Dylann Roof, James Holmes or Adam Lanza? If a license were required would any of them passed the background check?

I believe all would have and at least one of them (Roof) DID.

 

[francoHFW]

...Nobody needs guns...

Prove this to be true.

Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.

It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle. I prefer a pistol.

WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol

 

[francoHFW]

Only to punish people? Is that your final answer?

Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?

licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.

Neither constitutes an infringement on legal gun ownership. Only on those who should not own guns

All Americans are covered under the second amendment not just those with licenses or passes some test you make up.

If they're in a militia, you're right.

 

[Ernie S.]

There is no sense to my detailing how any idea to limit the proliferation of guns into the hands of criminals which you would ever consider.

None of the things you want to do will prevent criminals from getting guns.
The things you want to do only infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
That being the case, there's no reason any thinking person would consider them.

How would you know what a thinking person might consider?

Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns? Never. Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "panacea" or understand the meaning of mitigate
.
And if you do know the meaning of both words, than you are a liar (I don't discount what I consider true, that you are ignorant and idiotic).

"Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?"

No. You haven't actually made that claim, but the title of the thread is "keeping guns from criminals Liberals, what is your plan?
You have proposed a "plan". A logical person would assume you have responded to the question posed in the OP.

A logical person would wonder why such a stupid question was posed.

No sir. A logical person would have responded exactly as the post above yours did. You have conceded that new laws won't keep criminals from acquiring guns. You have danced around for days and avoided logic while calling others stupid.

You're a funny dude. I bet people laugh at you all the time.

You've got nothing and you're arrogant about it. Everyone else here can see right through you.

 

[Ernie S.]

...Nobody needs guns...

Prove this to be true.

Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.

It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle. I prefer a pistol.

WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol

No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.

 

[Ernie S.]

Ultimately, yes - criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms. Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?

licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.

Neither constitutes an infringement on legal gun ownership. Only on those who should not own guns

All Americans are covered under the second amendment not just those with licenses or passes some test you make up.

If they're in a militia, you're right.

I suggest you read District of Columbia vs. Heller.