Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[JoeB131]

The guy that bought the rifles for the San Bernardino shooters passed the background check and in reality there was no need for him to buy them, the shooter could have bought them on his own and passed the check.

That just proves guns are too easy to get. Thank you for making my point.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course hardened cockpits has nothing to do with that.

I wouldn't know. Have we ever had a case since 9/11 where the terrorist GOT on the plane and then was foiled by the hardened cockpit?

Or did they never get on the plane at all because we are checking them out before they get on the plane?

 

[JoeB131]

Really? That's a good post?

So you have first amendment right too.... can we deny that? We need to do a credit check before you are allowed to say your views. We need to check out your co-workers, and what school you went to, before you have freedom of speech. We need your FBI background check before you can have access to your freedom of speech.

Can you kill someone with words? No. Your argument is stupid. Go away.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

How many times does a person have to have a background check?

Look I went through my state's ridiculous permitting process

16 hours of classroom time, range certification, fingerprinting, references, paid hundreds of dollars all to exercise a constitutional right

I now have a little card with my photo on it that says I can buy any type firearms and carry concealed

That license needs to be renewed in 5 years at the cost of a couple hundred more dollars

Now IMO I should just be able to flash that license and buy a gun anywhere in my state but I still have to fill out reams of paperwork and then wait before I can take ownership of something I have a right to own

It's ridiculous and will not stop anyone from using a gun to shoot someone

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It is certainly likely a Democrat president would appoint someone carrying that oft-misconstrued phrase around in their error-filled head to the SCOTUS. And yes, it is possible that such a partisan moron would seek to self-amend the Constitution, because that's what Democrats do.

Now, were such to occur and when the people refuse to comply, and they will refuse, what would you suggest?

We have lots of very nice jails for those people. You work on the assumption I really care if bad things happen to gun nuts. I really and truly don't.

Too funny. Out of high school yet? You would not have enough jails, nor personnel to enforce such nonsense. Do you honestly believe that well over 100,000,000 people will just march on order?

And, I think it likely they care even less what happens to your kind.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Really? That's a good post?

So you have first amendment right too.... can we deny that? We need to do a credit check before you are allowed to say your views. We need to check out your co-workers, and what school you went to, before you have freedom of speech. We need your FBI background check before you can have access to your freedom of speech.

Can you kill someone with words? No. Your argument is stupid. Go away.

Each amendment carries the same weight as the others. Your argument is puerile and ill-informed.

 

[JoeB131]

Too funny. Out of high school yet? You would not have enough jails, nor personnel to enforce such nonsense. Do you honestly believe that well over 100,000,000 people will just march on order?

And, I think it likely they care even less what happens to your kind.

I think the vast majority would comply with the laws. It's only the few thousand NUTS who would be a problem...

and getting them out of the gene pool would be a blessing.

 

[JoeB131]

Each amendment carries the same weight as the others. Your argument is puerile and ill-informed.

Uh, we had 33,000 gun deaths last year due to the bizarre reading of the 2nd Amendment.

We had exactly ZERO Deaths because someone heard something on TV they didn't like.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's start out with banning manufacture of certain guns. The Thompson was a huge problem and every criminal worth his salts owned one. After they outlawed the manufacture, the gun slowly disappeared. And if you think the Thompson is any less lethal than a full auto M-16 or AK-47/74 you would be wrong. It took about a decade to get it out of most hands. If you want one now, you have to purchase it from a gun collector.

I see some similarities in the mass shootings. Large Capacity Mags, high fire rate to name the most common. The Handguns have done only a very small percentage of the killings as has shotguns. When you have a 32/50/100 round clip of either a 9mm or 556 you can do a lot of damage fast. Stop manufacturing these things and with a decade they will be gone from the Criminal Element.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

How many times does a person have to have a background check?

Look I went through my state's ridiculous permitting process

16 hours of classroom time, range certification, fingerprinting, references, paid hundreds of dollars all to exercise a constitutional right

I now have a little card with my photo on it that says I can buy any type firearms and carry concealed

That license needs to be renewed in 5 years at the cost of a couple hundred more dollars

Now IMO I should just be able to flash that license and buy a gun anywhere in my state but I still have to fill out reams of paperwork and then wait before I can take ownership of something I have a right to own

It's ridiculous and will not stop anyone from using a gun to shoot someone

What state?

In Virginia, I had an hour's class time, one-time range qual. Class cost $50.00, CC permit cost $50.00. Five year renewals cost $50.00. No permit necessary to buy.

Both nearby DC and Maryland, strong gun control regions, recently had a per capita gun crime rate five times that of Virginia. That rate may have changed with the Heller ruling. Since pro-2A forces have won this war, I don't pay too much attention to stats anymore.

Anyway, sounds like your state makes exercising your right a government cash cow. You really should complain.

 

[JoeB131]

What state?

In Virginia, I had an hour's class time, one-time range qual. Class cost $50.00, CC permit cost $50.00. Five year renewals cost $50.00. No permit necessary to buy.

Both nearby DC and Maryland, strong gun control regions, recently had a per capita gun crime rate five times that of Virginia. That rate may have changed with the Heller ruling. Since pro-2A forces have won this war, I don't pay too much attention to stats anymore.

Anyway, sounds like your state makes exercising your right a government cash cow. You really should complain.

and Virginia is where crooks in NY and Maryland get most of their guns.

Not to mention guys like Cho who had no business getting a gun.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Each amendment carries the same weight as the others. Your argument is puerile and ill-informed.

Uh, we had 33,000 gun deaths last year due to the bizarre reading of the 2nd Amendment.

We had exactly ZERO Deaths because someone heard something on TV they didn't like.

That is of no consequence where concerns the right. Most of the 33,000 were suicides, which is a victimless "crime". Even so, 33,000 is not even an infinitesimal blip against the more than 100,000,000 law abiding gun owners nationwide.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What state?

In Virginia, I had an hour's class time, one-time range qual. Class cost $50.00, CC permit cost $50.00. Five year renewals cost $50.00. No permit necessary to buy.

Both nearby DC and Maryland, strong gun control regions, recently had a per capita gun crime rate five times that of Virginia. That rate may have changed with the Heller ruling. Since pro-2A forces have won this war, I don't pay too much attention to stats anymore.

Anyway, sounds like your state makes exercising your right a government cash cow. You really should complain.

and Virginia is where crooks in NY and Maryland get most of their guns.

Shrug. If true, then perhaps those states should change their laws.

Not to mention guys like Cho who had no business getting a gun.

Indeed. No system will ever be perfect, and Cho was a known whack-job who wasn't reported. Privacy laws, ya know. Can't point out the crazies.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Let's start out with banning manufacture of certain guns. The Thompson was a huge problem and every criminal worth his salts owned one. After they outlawed the manufacture, the gun slowly disappeared. And if you think the Thompson is any less lethal than a full auto M-16 or AK-47/74 you would be wrong. It took about a decade to get it out of most hands. If you want one now, you have to purchase it from a gun collector.

I see some similarities in the mass shootings. Large Capacity Mags, high fire rate to name the most common. The Handguns have done only a very small percentage of the killings as has shotguns. When you have a 32/50/100 round clip of either a 9mm or 556 you can do a lot of damage fast. Stop manufacturing these things and with a decade they will be gone from the Criminal Element.

How about disappearing the criminals instead?

 

[Iceweasel]

Let's start out with banning manufacture of certain guns. The Thompson was a huge problem and every criminal worth his salts owned one. After they outlawed the manufacture, the gun slowly disappeared. And if you think the Thompson is any less lethal than a full auto M-16 or AK-47/74 you would be wrong. It took about a decade to get it out of most hands. If you want one now, you have to purchase it from a gun collector.

I see some similarities in the mass shootings. Large Capacity Mags, high fire rate to name the most common. The Handguns have done only a very small percentage of the killings as has shotguns. When you have a 32/50/100 round clip of either a 9mm or 556 you can do a lot of damage fast. Stop manufacturing these things and with a decade they will be gone from the Criminal Element.

Let's see...they outlawed the manufacture of the Thompson but you can still get one from the dealer? Tommy guns are wildly inaccurate in full auto so you would be wrong, they are less lethal in general than a AR or AK. Plus they are a sub gun, chambered for a pistol round, the .45 acp. That's why the military isn't issuing them these days.

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

 

[JoeB131]

That is of no consequence where concerns the right. Most of the 33,000 were suicides, which is a victimless "crime". Even so, 33,000 is not even an infinitesimal blip against the more than 100,000,000 law abiding gun owners nationwide.

Guy, we banned LAWN DARTS over a few deaths. We banned side-loading cribs over a few deaths.

We ban all sorts of shit over a few fatalities.

If you are saying there is no other way to prevent those 33000 deaths without losing your right to compensate for a tiny pecker, I really don't have a problem with banning guns altogether.

Or you can be breathtakingly rational and realize, "Yeah, too many guns are getting into the wrong hands, we need to do something about that."

How about disappearing the criminals instead?

We lock up 2 milllion people, compared to those gun-grabbing Europeans, who only lock up thousands. If locking people up was the answer, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the developed world, not the highest.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

 

[JoeB131]

Indeed. No system will ever be perfect, and Cho was a known whack-job who wasn't reported. Privacy laws, ya know. Can't point out the crazies.

No, the problem with Cho is that the gun dealers didn't look into him.

It took the Media less than a few hours to find out this guy had a history of anti-social behavior going back to junior high school. And yet he was STILL able to buy two guns, one of them by mail-order.

Which is why I have my perfect solution. If you sold or manufacture a gun used in a crime, you can be sued by the victims.

It's how we got the tobacco industry to clean up its act.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

That is of no consequence where concerns the right. Most of the 33,000 were suicides, which is a victimless "crime". Even so, 33,000 is not even an infinitesimal blip against the more than 100,000,000 law abiding gun owners nationwide.

Guy, we banned LAWN DARTS over a few deaths.

I still have mine. An entertaining diversion.

We ban all sorts of shit over a few fatalities.

Yup. Pretty stupid to penalize all over the stupidity of a few, eh?

If you are saying there is no other way to prevent those 33000 deaths without losing your right to compensate for a tiny pecker, I really don't have a problem with banning guns altogether.

So ban them. I'll wait.

How about disappearing the criminals instead?

We lock up 2 milllion people, compared to those gun-grabbing Europeans, who only lock up thousands. If locking people up was the answer, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the developed world, not the highest.

Where did I suggest locking them up?

 

[JoeB131]

Where did I suggest locking them up?

NO, you suggested "disappearing them", which is kind of fucked up. I was trying to have a rational conversation with you on the subject, because a government that 'disappears' people isn't going to be one that is going to want a bunch of guys out there with guns compensating for their tiny peckers.