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

[M14 Shooter]

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

You have also never soundly argued for the necessity of either.
That being the case, there is no sound argument for the constitutionality of either.

 

[Ernie S.]

So no relevant response? Just as I thought.

Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".

Your post: "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"

and,

"I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"

Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.

So you are fine with licensing only some rights granted by our Constitution and when challenged on that, resort to personal attacks.
Gotcha! I surrender. There is no way to reason with empty arrogance.

 

[2aguy]

We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...

 

[Lakhota]

We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...

Only if their intended purpose is to kill.

 

[2aguy]

We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...

Only if their intended purpose is to kill.

Oh…so you are stupid about the 1st Amendment the same way you are stupid about the 2nd….thanks for clarifying your stupidity…..

 

[Lakhota]

We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...

Only if their intended purpose is to kill.

Oh…so you are stupid about the 1st Amendment the same way you are stupid about the 2nd….thanks for clarifying your stupidity…..

You gun nutters are running on empty. Seriously.

 

[2aguy]

We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...

Only if their intended purpose is to kill.

Oh…so you are stupid about the 1st Amendment the same way you are stupid about the 2nd….thanks for clarifying your stupidity…..

You gun nutters are running on empty. Seriously.

Says the guy who supports the gun control measures that completely failed in France…...

 

[Wry Catcher]

So no relevant response? Just as I thought.

Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".

Your post: "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"

and,

"I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"

Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.

So you are fine with licensing only some rights granted by our Constitution and when challenged on that, resort to personal attacks.
Gotcha! I surrender. There is no way to reason with empty arrogance.

Cool, I like the fact that you've surrendered. However, before you leave to lick your wounds answer this:

Q. Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?

Granted, no one has the right to drive, or a right to work or play in any of the other vocations / avocations listed above.

Granted, they are not a right specifically guaranteed by the COTUS, but that right (the 2nd. A.) already has been deemed not to restrict some forms of licensing (FFL's for example) and restrictions passed by States as well as the Federal Government.

Licensing does not make anyone a criminal, it does provide a level of protection to the general public (protecting the common defense and promoting the general welfare).

So why is there so much anger associated with efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Q. Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?

You have never soundly argued for the necessity of licensing gun owners or registering firearms..
That being the case, there is no sound argument for the constitutionality of either.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?

You have never soundly argued for the necessity of licensing gun owners or registering firearms..
That being the case, there is no sound argument for the constitutionality of either.

Your limitations sure handicap your efforts to write a cogent rebuttal to gun control regulations seeking to find a middle ground to mitigate gun violence in America.

It must be frustrating for someone like you who can't formulate a defense for the proliferation of guns in America, and the numbers of too many guns ending up in the hands of mass murderers, rapists, robbers, abusers, parolees and ne'er-do-wells.

 

[Lakhota]

The NRA gun nutters should remember one thing: The Second Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time. The Second Amendment is not absolute - even nutty Scalia said that. The winds of change will eventually prompt SCOTUS to adopt more restrictive gun measures. That is why "compromise" is preferable to having a never-give-an-inch philosophy on gun control measures.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Q. Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?

You have never soundly argued for the necessity of licensing gun owners or registering firearms..
That being the case, there is no sound argument for the constitutionality of either.

Your limitations sure handicap your efforts to write a cogent rebuttal to gun control regulations seeking to find a middle ground to mitigate gun violence in America.

Nothing here changes the fact that you have never soundly argued for the necessity of licensing gun owners or registering firearms..
That being the case, there is no sound argument for the constitutionality of either.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The NRA gun nutters should remember one thing: The Second Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.

Same for those who support Obamacare.
Same for those who support same-sex marriage.
same for those who support abortion on demand.

 

[kaz]

This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.

35. Fallacy of Many Questions | | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast

Once again, you evade and deflect. They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or **** indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?
I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here.

Don't forget to charge them a fee, they are OK with fees for Constitutional rights

 

[kaz]

We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...

Only if their intended purpose is to kill.

So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill." You are one ... sick ... **** ...

 

[Lakhota]

We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...

Only if their intended purpose is to kill.

So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill." You are one ... sick ... **** ...

Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice. Speaking of sickness...

 

[M14 Shooter]

We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...

Only if their intended purpose is to kill.

So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill." You are one ... sick ... **** ...

Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice. Speaking of sickness...

Of COURSE guns are undersigned to, among other things, kill other people. -- that's why our right to them is protected by the constitution,.

 

[2aguy]

So no relevant response? Just as I thought.

Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".

Your post: "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"

and,

"I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"

Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.

So you are fine with licensing only some rights granted by our Constitution and when challenged on that, resort to personal attacks.
Gotcha! I surrender. There is no way to reason with empty arrogance.

Cool, I like the fact that you've surrendered. However, before you leave to lick your wounds answer this:

Q. Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?

Granted, no one has the right to drive, or a right to work or play in any of the other vocations / avocations listed above.

Granted, they are not a right specifically guaranteed by the COTUS, but that right (the 2nd. A.) already has been deemed not to restrict some forms of licensing (FFL's for example) and restrictions passed by States as well as the Federal Government.

Licensing does not make anyone a criminal, it does provide a level of protection to the general public (protecting the common defense and promoting the general welfare).

So why is there so much anger associated with efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States?

what does a license for owning a gun do to stop or prevent gun crime, or mass shooting....France did not even license fully automatic rifles or pistols, and hunting shotguns are hard to get a license for......so France did what you want Wry...how did that work out for them.......and Denmark, and Sweden....and Belgium....

 

[2aguy]

So no relevant response? Just as I thought.

Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".

Your post: "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"

and,

"I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"

Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.

So you are fine with licensing only some rights granted by our Constitution and when challenged on that, resort to personal attacks.
Gotcha! I surrender. There is no way to reason with empty arrogance.

Cool, I like the fact that you've surrendered. However, before you leave to lick your wounds answer this:

Q. Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?

Granted, no one has the right to drive, or a right to work or play in any of the other vocations / avocations listed above.

Granted, they are not a right specifically guaranteed by the COTUS, but that right (the 2nd. A.) already has been deemed not to restrict some forms of licensing (FFL's for example) and restrictions passed by States as well as the Federal Government.

Licensing does not make anyone a criminal, it does provide a level of protection to the general public (protecting the common defense and promoting the general welfare).

So why is there so much anger associated with efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States?

also...requiring a fee and a test to exercise the right to vote are already unconstitutional...so requiring a fee and a test to exercise the 2nd Amendment is also unconstitutional...unlike car dealers and pilots...

 

[2aguy]

So no relevant response? Just as I thought.

Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".

Your post: "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"

and,

"I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"

Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.

So you are fine with licensing only some rights granted by our Constitution and when challenged on that, resort to personal attacks.
Gotcha! I surrender. There is no way to reason with empty arrogance.

Cool, I like the fact that you've surrendered. However, before you leave to lick your wounds answer this:

Q. Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?

Granted, no one has the right to drive, or a right to work or play in any of the other vocations / avocations listed above.

Granted, they are not a right specifically guaranteed by the COTUS, but that right (the 2nd. A.) already has been deemed not to restrict some forms of licensing (FFL's for example) and restrictions passed by States as well as the Federal Government.

Licensing does not make anyone a criminal, it does provide a level of protection to the general public (protecting the common defense and promoting the general welfare).

So why is there so much anger associated with efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States?

How did licensing protect the French?