You say that like it might be true. Remember where we are. USMB is home to people with no more qualification to discuss events and policies than they have to do brain surgery.
Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?
- Thread starter kaz
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #6,482
Exactly. No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!
- Thread starter
- #6,483
Well you certainly showed YOUR true colors there, son.Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
Hey fish douche: You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state. Try to learn something of history someday.
"Generalizations" about the Constitution? Is the Second Amendment a "generalization? Are you insane as well as ignorant?
Your proposal would require the complete repeal of the second and possibly the 4th as well, but sadly, it wouldn't do very much good other than clog the courts with prosecutions of government manufactured criminals.
Thugs will still have guns. If you remember from kindergarten, bad people do not follow the rules.
I always like how liberals say Republicans are so dumb they think passing a law will get rid of drugs. Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
- Thread starter
- #6,484
What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
Hey fish douche: You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state. Try to learn something of history someday.
I don'
Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
Hey fish douche: You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state. Try to learn something of history someday.
LOL.
Wrong. I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong. UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.
And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.
It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend. Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut. BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.
Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.
Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.
Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.
It's comic how you talk about pro-gun right advocates as "condescending" and yet you give a continual stream of these: "One item is never enough for the fetish collector." Physician, heal thyself
- Thread starter
- #6,485
Yep, it's the left who continually equate a gun with a penis, clearly showing where that particular problem is.
- Thread starter
- #6,486
The difference is that being a thing, a gun can start out legal, but then it can be obtained illegally. If a stolen gun is sold, it's an illegal gun. There's no analogy for that with immigrants and illegal aliens
Ernie S.
Diamond Member
I realize where we are and that there are those here not particularly high up the evolutionary ladder, however, this one has a good command of the language and seems relatively intelligent, maybe even a stand out among those on the Left, BUT to not grasp the difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant?
Seems to be willful ignorance from where I sit.
Fishlore
Silver Member
I am in complete agreement with you. I brought up the absurd idea that an immigrant is an immigrant to show the logical folly the claim that a gun is a gun, legal or illegal.
The legal status of a firearm is as easy to determine as the legal status of an immigrant and is done by pretty much the same method.
When statistics were cited about the use of illegal guns in crime, I responded with the statement which, although obviously true, seemed to confuse my interlocutor, namely that every gun begins as a legal gun.
Guns are legally manufactured and legally imported by gun wholesalers and dealers. These legal guns are legally transferred to retailers. It is at this point, or even further down the chain of custody, that the once-legal gun gets its illegal status.
It is difficult to know much about illegal guns in circulation but quite easy to identify the the starting and ending points in the transfer of a gun now in possession of the police because of its use in a crime. It is from these records that the statement about the prevalency of illegal guns in illegal situations is drawn.
That same data shows that the majority of once-legal but now illegal guns pass through a small minority of licensed gun dealers. Police investigation in places like NYC and Chicago have mapped out heavily travelled trails on which guns purchased out-of-state often by straw buyers, end up in the wrong hands.
Focusing law enforcement resources on the hot spots would significantly reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation without having any effect at all on the legal guns. Why is the promising and time-tested method of investigation not being followed? Because hidden provisions in the relevant federal legislation prevent it. This has been the work of gun industry lobbyists, not legitimate gun owners.
Kaz,
There is no certain way to prevent every case of illegal drug use.
There is no certain way to prevent every case of murder.
There is no certain way to prevent every case of speeding or drunk driving.
But we still have laws against these things so as to lower their occurrence.
No liberal I know thinks that increasing background checks is going to prevent every gun murder - but if it makes it harder for one mentally retarded psychopath to shoot up a school, than the goal is achieved.
On the OP's logic we shouldn't have laws against murder, rape or torture because said law cannot stop every instance of rape, murder and torture. This is wrongheaded. The test of any law or regulation or oversight mechanism must be if it reduces (not eliminates) the unwanted behavior.
There is nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that congress can't regulate who has access to guns. The framers didn't say that every prisoner in a maximum security prison has a right to carry a loaded weapon, nor did they say that kindergarten students could pack machine guns. These matters were left suitably open to legislation.
(And this coming from someone who has no problem with guns or gun ownership)
There is no certain way to prevent every case of illegal drug use.
There is no certain way to prevent every case of murder.
There is no certain way to prevent every case of speeding or drunk driving.
But we still have laws against these things so as to lower their occurrence.
No liberal I know thinks that increasing background checks is going to prevent every gun murder - but if it makes it harder for one mentally retarded psychopath to shoot up a school, than the goal is achieved.
On the OP's logic we shouldn't have laws against murder, rape or torture because said law cannot stop every instance of rape, murder and torture. This is wrongheaded. The test of any law or regulation or oversight mechanism must be if it reduces (not eliminates) the unwanted behavior.
There is nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that congress can't regulate who has access to guns. The framers didn't say that every prisoner in a maximum security prison has a right to carry a loaded weapon, nor did they say that kindergarten students could pack machine guns. These matters were left suitably open to legislation.
(And this coming from someone who has no problem with guns or gun ownership)
Last edited:
Fishlore
Silver Member
The OP asked "Liberals, what's your plan?" I posted my plan. Did I expect conservatives to like it? Did the conservatives expect that they would like it? Of course not on both counts. Does this mean that the thread is a mistake? No, it is interesting and helpful to see the opposing point of view. One might even engage in debate about some of evidence or argument presented by Liberals presenting their plans as requested. It's a debate forum, isn't it?
But what about the hostility, the sarcasm, the name calling? Is getting the opportunity to indulge in these attacks the real reason for asking for Liberal plans? Seriously, Dude, is that where you are coming from?
But what about the hostility, the sarcasm, the name calling? Is getting the opportunity to indulge in these attacks the real reason for asking for Liberal plans? Seriously, Dude, is that where you are coming from?
Jarlaxle
Gold Member
Smokin' the good shit today, eh, fishbrain?
Fishlore
Silver Member
It is sad to see someone with the necessary social capital to post online who is restricted to such a pathetic jibe.
- Thread starter
- #6,493
That's a ridiculous analogy. Buying a gun is like committing murder? Most gun owners are honest citizens who never harm anyone with the gun. How many murderers never harm anyone with murder?
The acquisition of a tool is not analogous in any reasonable way to committing a crime.
Criminals buying guns is already illegal. Committing murder with a gun is already illegal.
Criminals get guns anyway. 3% of gun crimes are committed with a gun purchased legally. The issue is with our gun laws that you're preventing honest citizens from having guns when and where we need it. You aren't affecting criminal's ability to get them. They break the law. Think about it, they are ... criminals ...
- Thread starter
- #6,494
The problem with your plan is that it would do more harm than good in this country. The question isn't how we'd do it in a made up world, it's what do you propose that would work in this one.
My plan is to maximize keeping criminals in jail to reduce repeat crimes and let people defend themselves. You'd start a rebellion trying to confiscate 310 million guns
JTFM
Rookie
What a lot of the anti gun folks fail to realize is how many Americans really are pro gun ownership. Even if they don't own a one. That includes many of the folks that would be expected to do the confiscating.
It would be anarchy with few people left to control it to meet the ends wanted by the anti gunners.
Fishlore
Silver Member
The rebellion fantasy is a big part of the gun lover's world. Rebellion against an oppressive government, rebellion against foreign invaders, now rebellion against a gun confiscation law. They are all dreams.
For one thing, gun owners are not connected and are united only by their guns. They don't know each other, they have no communication or logistics and most of them are middle-aged country boys driving pickup trucks. Not much of a challenge for the state police.
The fantasy is one of jack-booted thugs standing on the front lawn exchanging fire with our gun-toting hero. That isn't the way things work. Court orders, civil fines, etc. the slow squeeze that collapsed the rebellious bluster of the gun nuts holed up in that wildlife sanctuary. Having a gun doesn't make you a soldier.
One good thing about that notional "rebellion" it would solidify majority support for gun confiscation. The American pea pull are sick and tired of these gun nuts with their crazy ideas.
Jarlaxle
Gold Member
Dude, the "I dream of North Korea" thread is in the other forum.
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
Hey fish douche: You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state. Try to learn something of history someday.
I don'
Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
Hey fish douche: You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state. Try to learn something of history someday.
LOL.
Wrong. I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong. UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.
And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.
It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend. Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut. BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.
Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.
Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.
Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.
As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:
What I MEANT to say is what I did say. And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.
The Second Amendment still exists. The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.
That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.
Mertex
Cat Lady =^..^=
- Apr 27, 2013
- 26,532
- 13,992
- 1,445
Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone. I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible. Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that? I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat! And, he's only being charged with manslaughter? So much for responsibility.
Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn. He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim). It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range. That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get. I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such. But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Yay! Balls and strikes challenge is here and it works great!- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 1
