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

[Ernie S.]

Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15

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!

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?

No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic. The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the last people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.

A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.

Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.
Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?

When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?

If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?

If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?

You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.

I'm saying criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. What you seem to be saying is that even though existing gun laws haven't made any significant impact on the murder rate, one more ought to do the trick. Your vocabulary is awesome, Fish face, but your logic is nonexistent.

 

[Ernie S.]

Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!

No one is trying to "get rid" of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?

So where should guns be allowed?

I'm guessing you think everywhere. I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.

So more gun free zones where people are prohibited from defending themselves is your answer? While I don't much care for drunks with guns, I am ALWAYS armed at my bar, thank God, else I more than likely wouldn't be here.

But you'll defer to the experts... It's already been established that you are WAY below expert level in any conversation about firearms. Perhaps you should defer to sentient beings.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!

No one is trying to "get rid" of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?

So where should guns be allowed?

I'm guessing you think everywhere. I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.

The thing is you would never know if a person was carrying concealed. I have carried in all those places and no one ever knew and shockingly I didn't shoot anyone either

So, in other words, you are admitting that you have broken the law. Are you one of those who considers themselves a "responsible" gun owner just because you haven't been caught breaking the law?

It's not illegal to carry in my state and I have a concealed carry permit.

The point is that you would never know who is carrying in fact there are people carrying concealed everywhere you go. Knowing that now how many of those criminal in waiting gun owners have drawn down and started blasting away?

 

[Skull Pilot]

.
Sorry man, who do you want to murder?

I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.

No they are not. They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.

Bwahahaha.....they may be used for shooting projectiles, targets or what have you, but their main purpose is to kill.



People pull the triggers, but guns are designed to kill. Guns are engineered, tested, and refined to kill--rapidly, efficiently and without malfunction.

That is what the technology is designed to do. Period.

As philosopher Evan Selinger put it in the Atlantic after the Colorado shooting, thinking of guns as value-neutral has consequences. Unlike other pieces of technology that sometimes become instruments to kill people--such as cars, say, or knives--guns are designed for no other purpose.

Guns are made to kill. And we've allowed them to be treated as mere consumer items, or as recreational gizmos. They're not. Automatic weapons in particular are designed to kill many people at once.

Given the damage they can do, they should require licensing as heavy as those for someone driving a backhoe or a train. They are a serious technology that now fill private arsenals all over the country, and we know very little about who has them--and why.
Guns are made to kill.

Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.

That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting? The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period, the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.
Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality

...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used. They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.

And? This is supposed to justify that we don't need better gun control laws?

Funny my guns have never killed anyone either I must be using them wrong or they are defective

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!

No one is trying to "get rid" of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?

So where should guns be allowed?

I'm guessing you think everywhere. I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.

So more gun free zones where people are prohibited from defending themselves is your answer? While I don't much care for drunks with guns, I am ALWAYS armed at my bar, thank God, else I more than likely wouldn't be here.

But you'll defer to the experts... It's already been established that you are WAY below expert level in any conversation about firearms. Perhaps you should defer to sentient beings.

In my state I can lose my carry permit if I am drinking while armed so if I am carrying I do not drink

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.

You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want. I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to read with your hand down your pants. I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.

My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a ******* idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit. We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal **** buddies.

You're going there because you're losing on content. So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic. That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?

Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.

You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?

Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that. Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.

You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place

I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone

 

[Fishlore]

No they are not. They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.

Bwahahaha.....they may be used for shooting projectiles, targets or what have you, but their main purpose is to kill.



People pull the triggers, but guns are designed to kill. Guns are engineered, tested, and refined to kill--rapidly, efficiently and without malfunction.

That is what the technology is designed to do. Period.

As philosopher Evan Selinger put it in the Atlantic after the Colorado shooting, thinking of guns as value-neutral has consequences. Unlike other pieces of technology that sometimes become instruments to kill people--such as cars, say, or knives--guns are designed for no other purpose.

Guns are made to kill. And we've allowed them to be treated as mere consumer items, or as recreational gizmos. They're not. Automatic weapons in particular are designed to kill many people at once.

Given the damage they can do, they should require licensing as heavy as those for someone driving a backhoe or a train. They are a serious technology that now fill private arsenals all over the country, and we know very little about who has them--and why.
Guns are made to kill.

Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.

That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting? The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period, the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.
Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality

...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used. They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.

And? This is supposed to justify that we don't need better gun control laws?

Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.
That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.

The gun is a killing device. That central fact should not be blurred by discussion of the use of guns to defend against criminals or to deter criminal attacks because the reason that guns can be used in these ways is that guns have the power to kill. Bank robbers and policmen carry guns for the same reason: they give the person with the gun the power to kill. The goals of the robber and the cops are very different but their use of the gun is the same.

The black powder muzzle loader and the double-barreled shotgun are designed to kill animals, not people. They used to be far more common in family arsenals than revolvers and automatic pistols which are designed to kill people. Those long guns have dwindled into rarity status among today's gun nuts, whose taste runs almost exclusively to automatic weapons, the people-killers.

You can't get far hunting ducks with an assault rifle. Gun nuts aren't hunters, they are fetishists. They don't fantasize about bringing down an eight point buck with that Glock, they are dreaming about shoot an imaginary black man. It's sick.

From the transsexual who doesn't want to engage in petty insults, but when you have that chance you pass .. over your clitoris ... over and over ...

Smutty rage over any discussion of gun violence is, of course, to be expected. The delightful novelty in this thread is this sputtering hysteria over a clitoris metaphor.

Metaphor is apparently beyond the cognitive grasp of our pistol kissers. Like a high school teacher in an English class of low-achievers, one wants to get the kids to see that the metaphor is contained in the words "body politic of the conservative movement." The body politic isn't a real body so its clitoris isn't a real clitoris. The sentence says the clitoris of the body politic is a handgun and the question for the class is, how is a human clitoris like handgun in conservative thinking? Alas, one might as well try to explain Sunday to a cow as try to get these raging, foul-mouthed kids to think so abstractly.

It was interesting to see that the word "clitoris" immediately provoked outraged giggles about masturbation because this association suggests a rather limited understanding of women. No surprise there: the war on women and war on guns rage inside the same skulls. We are talking about limiited and immature male experience in both cases. The attitude is common among teenage boys; finding it among middle-aged guys with thousands of dollars worth of killing tools stored in the closet is a good deal harder to accept with equanimity. Still, it is funny in a sad sort of way.

 

[Flash]

[

Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.

That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.

In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting? The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period, the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.
Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality

.

If you are afraid of shooting yourself with your own gun then don't buy one. Problem solved.

 

[Fishlore]

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!

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?

No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic. The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the last people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.

A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.

Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.
Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?

When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?

If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?

If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?

You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.

I'm saying criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. What you seem to be saying is that even though existing gun laws haven't made any significant impact on the murder rate, one more ought to do the trick. Your vocabulary is awesome, Fish face, but your logic is nonexistent.

The OP asked, "liberals, what's your plan?" Nothing in my plan suggested "one more"; In fact, my plan was presented as the only law needed. Your knee-jerk reaction to any proposal to limit guns dims your reading comprehension.

Your rather simplistic statemen "criminals, definition, don't obey laws" is a pathetically false burst of amateur criminology. Criminals obey lots of laws most of the time and even the laws they deliberately violate are broken only a small part of the time. You understanding of the nature and frequency of criminal violation is absurd. This is too bad because the key concept of deterrence is clearly beyond you and informed discussion of the socio-dynamics of gun legislation beyond your ken. Too bad.

That you cannot express even the simplest concept without attempting to give it weight by tacking on a personal insult ("Fish face") is a clue to one of the causes of your limited ability. You can't think without feeling and when guns are involved, you are so emotionally threatened that you can't think at all.

 

[kaz]

Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!

No one is trying to "get rid" of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?

So where should guns be allowed?

I'm guessing you think everywhere. I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.

So more gun free zones where people are prohibited from defending themselves is your answer? While I don't much care for drunks with guns, I am ALWAYS armed at my bar, thank God, else I more than likely wouldn't be here.

But you'll defer to the experts... It's already been established that you are WAY below expert level in any conversation about firearms. Perhaps you should defer to sentient beings.

Mertex is a blue State city snob who doesn't know anything about living in the real America, she just looks down on it and thinks she knows everything

 

[kaz]

You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want. I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to read with your hand down your pants. I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.

My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a ******* idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit. We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal **** buddies.

You're going there because you're losing on content. So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic. That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?

Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.

You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?

Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that. Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.

You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place

I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone

Yes, I owned guns since I was a kid, grew up outside Kalamazoo (hence "kaz"), Michigan. I've never shot anyone. We must not be using them right

 

[Fishlore]

You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want. I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to read with your hand down your pants. I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.

My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a ******* idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit. We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal **** buddies.

You're going there because you're losing on content. So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic. That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?

Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.

You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?

Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that. Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.

You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place

I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone

Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!

Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.

Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."

You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.

 

[kaz]

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?

No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic. The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the last people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.

A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.

Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.
Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?

When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?

If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?

If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?

You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.

I'm saying criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. What you seem to be saying is that even though existing gun laws haven't made any significant impact on the murder rate, one more ought to do the trick. Your vocabulary is awesome, Fish face, but your logic is nonexistent.

The OP asked, "liberals, what's your plan?" Nothing in my plan suggested "one more"; In fact, my plan was presented as the only law needed. Your knee-jerk reaction to any proposal to limit guns dims your reading comprehension.

Your rather simplistic statemen "criminals, definition, don't obey laws" is a pathetically false burst of amateur criminology. Criminals obey lots of laws most of the time and even the laws they deliberately violate are broken only a small part of the time. You understanding of the nature and frequency of criminal violation is absurd. This is too bad because the key concept of deterrence is clearly beyond you and informed discussion of the socio-dynamics of gun legislation beyond your ken. Too bad.

That you cannot express even the simplest concept without attempting to give it weight by tacking on a personal insult ("Fish face") is a clue to one of the causes of your limited ability. You can't think without feeling and when guns are involved, you are so emotionally threatened that you can't think at all.

You had a chance to have a discussion without insults and you passed. Maybe you should work on yourself before you lecture others.

As for criminals not being willing to follow laws, Ernie is right, the laws are based on that ridiculous premise:

1) We have 310 million guns in this country

2) We have open borders which flood drugs into this country

3) And guns

4) And there is no punishment for criminals to try to buy an illegal gun

So you explain how we are going to stop criminals from buying guns unless criminals decide they won't break the law to do it

 

[kaz]

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic. That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?

Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.

You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?

Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that. Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.

You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place

I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone

Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!

Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.

Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."

You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.

Again with the insults, LOL. As for that Ernie not having killed anyone "yet," think he's a sleeper agent for the Russians or for KAOS? Where have you gone, Maxwell Smart!

And again, your sick view that guns are dildos, if you want to stroke your vagina with your piece, you go right ahead. But real life gun owners think you're sick

 

[Ernie S.]

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?

No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic. The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the last people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.

A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.

Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.
Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?

When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?

If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?

If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?

You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.

I'm saying criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. What you seem to be saying is that even though existing gun laws haven't made any significant impact on the murder rate, one more ought to do the trick. Your vocabulary is awesome, Fish face, but your logic is nonexistent.

The OP asked, "liberals, what's your plan?" Nothing in my plan suggested "one more"; In fact, my plan was presented as the only law needed. Your knee-jerk reaction to any proposal to limit guns dims your reading comprehension.

Your rather simplistic statemen "criminals, definition, don't obey laws" is a pathetically false burst of amateur criminology. Criminals obey lots of laws most of the time and even the laws they deliberately violate are broken only a small part of the time. You understanding of the nature and frequency of criminal violation is absurd. This is too bad because the key concept of deterrence is clearly beyond you and informed discussion of the socio-dynamics of gun legislation beyond your ken. Too bad.

That you cannot express even the simplest concept without attempting to give it weight by tacking on a personal insult ("Fish face") is a clue to one of the causes of your limited ability. You can't think without feeling and when guns are involved, you are so emotionally threatened that you can't think at all.

Many words; says nothing.

 

[Fishlore]

Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic. That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?

Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.

You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?

Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that. Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.

You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place

I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone

Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!

Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.

Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."

You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.

Again with the insults, LOL. As for that Ernie not having killed anyone "yet," think he's a sleeper agent for the Russians or for KAOS? Where have you gone, Maxwell Smart!

And again, your sick view that guns are dildos, if you want to stroke your vagina with your piece, you go right ahead. But real life gun owners think you're sick

Much as I might feel obligate to point out to our self-declared spokesman for "real-life gun owners" that a clitoris is not a dildo, I'm afraid I need to turn my attention to more serious issues. The guy is a riot though and I sincerely hope that no sharp edge on his handgun punches a hole in his blow-up date.

 

[Fishlore]

Many words; says nothing.

Fewer words; says even less.

 

[Fishlore]

Fewer words; says even less.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.

Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic. That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?

Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.

You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?

Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that. Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.

You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place

I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone

Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!

Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.

Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."

You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.

OK So they are either criminals in waiting or they aren't criminals at all make up your mind.

And if having guns available is dangerous then how come the vast majority of LEGAL gun owners never commit crimes or kill anyone?

You people like attribute the behavior of an extreme minority ( most of them already criminals and not merely waiting to be criminals) to every gun owner.

And who are exactly folks like me?

Do you mean men who are law abiding responsible contributing members of their community that just happen to own guns?
Because that's the kind of folks most of us are

 

[kaz]

Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.

You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?

Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that. Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.

You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place

I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone

Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!

Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.

Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."

You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.

Again with the insults, LOL. As for that Ernie not having killed anyone "yet," think he's a sleeper agent for the Russians or for KAOS? Where have you gone, Maxwell Smart!

And again, your sick view that guns are dildos, if you want to stroke your vagina with your piece, you go right ahead. But real life gun owners think you're sick

Much as I might feel obligate to point out to our self-declared spokesman for "real-life gun owners" that a clitoris is not a dildo, I'm afraid I need to turn my attention to more serious issues. The guy is a riot though and I sincerely hope that no sharp edge on his handgun punches a hole in his blow-up date.

So when you say gun owners have a clitoris, that's OK, when I say they don't, then that's not, I'm taking on speaking for gun owners. Actually, we're both discussing our experiences. Your experience is mindless bigotry without knowing any actual gun owner, and mine is a lifetime owning guns and being around gun owners. Obviously you know better