Question for the supporters of laissiez faire gun sales

[EGR one]

Why do LWNJ's hate the Constitution?

Because most of them are not mentally fit to live in a society where people are free to choose their own destiny. They feel threatened, and they feel that they cannot compete adequately. They need someone or something, to guarantee their safety and security. The US Constitution stands in the way of them creating a society that they trust will meet those needs.

Most progressives fail to understand that without the agony of defeat, there can be no thrill of victory.

 

[hunarcy]

Obviously I voted No. Those who continue to echo "shall not be infringed" fail to understand that their are limits now, on what arms and what persons can own, possess or ever legally have a gun in their custody and control.

What do you fail to understand about when government has the right to limit a constitutional right? Government can limit a constitutional right, only when it can show a compelling reason to do so, and then only when it can show that the limitation is the least restrictive means of meeting that compelling reason.

Because it makes some people feel better is not a compelling reason to limit others' constitutional rights. Especially, when the restrictions desired will not solve the stated problem.

Have I reminded you enough that your are stupid, or must I continue to tell you what is evident to every person who reads your shit and l's o l.

But I digress. Rational people with empathy find the murders of innocent people a compelling reason to debate gun controls and the need for a more restrictive policy on gun and ammo sales. Irrational people do not, and stupid people believe more guns in the hands of more people is the panacea.

If you are going to persist in calling names, you might want to proof read before posting. "that your are stupid" does not make HIM look stupid.

Now, murders of innocent people are VERY upsetting, but no one wants to waste time on solutions that do not address the issue of how to deal with criminals who make out lives unsafe. Gun control does NOT make us safer. Effectively punishing criminals will.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The OP is a false statement on its face. I cannot go into a gun store and walk out with a gun today. It is not like buying a t shirt at Walmart.

No it is not as easy as buying a T shirt, and it should not be. However it is easy to buy a gun without any background check from another person, or in the parking lot of a gun show, or by a straw buyer.

So your post reflects your ignorance, and/or that you are a damn liar.

/——/ How about a 5 day waiting period and background checks for abortions?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The OP is a false statement on its face. I cannot go into a gun store and walk out with a gun today. It is not like buying a t shirt at Walmart.

No it is not as easy as buying a T shirt, and it should not be. However it is easy to buy a gun without any background check from another person, or in the parking lot of a gun show, or by a straw buyer.

So your post reflects your ignorance, and/or that you are a damn liar.

I'm sure you are aware that, at the very least, no person is allowed to sell their firearm to another if the other isn't allowed to possess the firearm, aren't you?

Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLaw

And I'm sure that happens everyday, and you know that too.

If every gun were registered, that issue could be resolved. Not in the sense it will prevent all gun sales to those who are not vetted, but to link the sale to the registered owner, and punish them. Of course that too won't prevent gun violence, but it sure would limit the number of those intent on criminal activity to obtain a gun.

But I believe each state should be allowed the right to require licensing of all gun owners, and the registration of all guns within their borders.

 

[Defiant1]

Obviously I voted No. Those who continue to echo "shall not be infringed" fail to understand that their are limits now, on what arms and what persons can own, possess or ever legally have a gun in their custody and control.

When my rights are threatened I fight back, regardless of age, color, or depravity.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The OP is a false statement on its face. I cannot go into a gun store and walk out with a gun today. It is not like buying a t shirt at Walmart.

No it is not as easy as buying a T shirt, and it should not be. However it is easy to buy a gun without any background check from another person, or in the parking lot of a gun show, or by a straw buyer.

So your post reflects your ignorance, and/or that you are a damn liar.

/——/ How about a 5 day waiting period and background checks for abortions?

Off topic, but if a state choose to do so, and deny age appropriate sex ed in their schools, and allow bigots to deny contraceptives to women and men, they will be the ones culpable of back alley abortions and the cost of infections and STD's.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obviously I voted No. Those who continue to echo "shall not be infringed" fail to understand that their are limits now, on what arms and what persons can own, possess or ever legally have a gun in their custody and control.

When my rights are threatened I fight back, regardless of age, color, or depravity.

Wow, thanks John Wayne, you must be one bad ass(hole).

 

[JimBowie1958]

Obviously I voted No. Those who continue to echo "shall not be infringed" fail to understand that their are limits now, on what arms and what persons can own, possess or ever legally have a gun in their custody and control.

No one supports laissiez faire gun sales, dude.

That is a figment of your own ignorance and delusions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I haven't attacked any whiney, ignorant twats.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The OP is a false statement on its face. I cannot go into a gun store and walk out with a gun today. It is not like buying a t shirt at Walmart.

No it is not as easy as buying a T shirt, and it should not be. However it is easy to buy a gun without any background check from another person, or in the parking lot of a gun show, or by a straw buyer.

So your post reflects your ignorance, and/or that you are a damn liar.

/——/ How about a 5 day waiting period and background checks for abortions?

Off topic, but if a state choose to do so, and deny age appropriate sex ed in their schools, and allow bigots to deny contraceptives to women and men, they will be the ones culpable of back alley abortions and the cost of infections and STD's.

/——-/ Ahhhhthe old straw man arguments, when you can’t debate the issues call ‘em bigots and make up extreme examples.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The OP is a false statement on its face. I cannot go into a gun store and walk out with a gun today. It is not like buying a t shirt at Walmart.

No it is not as easy as buying a T shirt, and it should not be. However it is easy to buy a gun without any background check from another person, or in the parking lot of a gun show, or by a straw buyer.

So your post reflects your ignorance, and/or that you are a damn liar.

I'm sure you are aware that, at the very least, no person is allowed to sell their firearm to another if the other isn't allowed to possess the firearm, aren't you?

Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLaw

And I'm sure that happens everyday, and you know that too.

If every gun were registered, that issue could be resolved. Not in the sense it will prevent all gun sales to those who are not vetted, but to link the sale to the registered owner, and punish them. Of course that too won't prevent gun violence, but it sure would limit the number of those intent on criminal activity to obtain a gun.

But I believe each state should be allowed the right to require licensing of all gun owners, and the registration of all guns within their borders.

/—-/ Can we require waiting periods and back ground checks for abortions while we’re at it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

and all manner of gun controls?

Do the attacks which began in earnest yesterday, and continue today, on the teenagers who marched in The District and in cities around our nation Saturday, help your cause or harm it?

Attacking 17 year old marchers for their sexual orientation, looks or color is a theme which infects many of the threads on this topic

Attacking 17-year-old marchers for their sexual orientation, looks or color is reprehensible conduct common to most on the right, the consequence of their fear and inability to respond in a logical, factual, and reasonable manner.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Listen to David Hoggs.........the one giving inspiration to the left gun grabbing nuts.............

Especially when he states we should use White Privilege terminology...............

Is he under the impression that white privilege terminology works?

 

[2aguy]

and all manner of gun controls?

Do the attacks which began in earnest yesterday, and continue today, on the teenagers who marched in The District and in cities around our nation Saturday, help your cause or harm it?

Attacking 17 year old marchers for their sexual orientation, looks or color is a theme which infects many of the threads on this topic

So...saying the NRA, it's members, Dana Loesch, Marco Rubio have blood on their hands....which is what these teenagers are saying, yelling and screaming....that is something we should just accept...considering it is President Obama's Promise Program that allowed the shooter to have a clean criminal record that allowed him to pass the background check you guys want......?

 

[2aguy]

and all manner of gun controls?

Do the attacks which began in earnest yesterday, and continue today, on the teenagers who marched in The District and in cities around our nation Saturday, help your cause or harm it?

Attacking 17 year old marchers for their sexual orientation, looks or color is a theme which infects many of the threads on this topic

Are the marchers attacking others.....who had nothing to do with what happened in her school? Themarchers knew the shooter was marginalized, did they do anything to help him?....We know they didn't because they admitted it

Q. Are they attacking others

A. Not with ad hominems.

Persona attacks are not arguments, they are logical fallacies. They are exercising their First Amendment Rights.

You can defend your Second Amendment Rights, why can't they defend their First.

Hmmmm...they didn't say the NRA and it's supporters killed those kids? That they have blood on their hands?

You are never an honest person.

 

[2aguy]

Obviously I voted No. Those who continue to echo "shall not be infringed" fail to understand that their are limits now, on what arms and what persons can own, possess or ever legally have a gun in their custody and control.

Yes...we have limits on gun ownership.....you can't buy, own or carry a gun if you are a felon or determined by a court to be dangerously mentally ill......you asswipes pretend that there are no current limits to ownership......when the truth is those limits are all we actually need, it is just that people like you and your democrat politicians keep letting the violent gun criminals out of jail....the ones responsible for 11,004 actual gun murders in 2016........repeat gun offenders released on bond, out on parole and who had their gun charges dropped....becuase of democrat politicians and judges.....

 

[2aguy]

The OP is a false statement on its face. I cannot go into a gun store and walk out with a gun today. It is not like buying a t shirt at Walmart.

No it is not as easy as buying a T shirt, and it should not be. However it is easy to buy a gun without any background check from another person, or in the parking lot of a gun show, or by a straw buyer.

So your post reflects your ignorance, and/or that you are a damn liar.

and that is a crime if the buyer is a felon...they can already be arrested and jailed under existing law...and the felon already knows this.....and the fact is this isn't how criminals get their guns...they get them through straw buyers who go through background checks for the criminal...and would go through background checks at gun shows and for private sales....

 

[2aguy]

Obviously I voted No. Those who continue to echo "shall not be infringed" fail to understand that their are limits now, on what arms and what persons can own, possess or ever legally have a gun in their custody and control.

What do you fail to understand about when government has the right to limit a constitutional right? Government can limit a constitutional right, only when it can show a compelling reason to do so, and then only when it can show that the limitation is the least restrictive means of meeting that compelling reason.

Because it makes some people feel better is not a compelling reason to limit others' constitutional rights. Especially, when the restrictions desired will not solve the stated problem.

Have I reminded you enough that your are stupid, or must I continue to tell you what is evident to every person who reads your shit and l's o l.

But I digress. Rational people with empathy find the murders of innocent people a compelling reason to debate gun controls and the need for a more restrictive policy on gun and ammo sales. Irrational people do not, and stupid people believe more guns in the hands of more people is the panacea.

They aren't debating gun control...they are screaming to ban weapons that were not used to harm anyone....there are 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles......one was used in Florida......and knives, lawn mowers and clubs are used to murder more people than mass shooters every single year......

More guns in the hands of law abiding people do not create mass shootings or more crime.......

This is the truth....you are a liar...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

The OP is a false statement on its face. I cannot go into a gun store and walk out with a gun today. It is not like buying a t shirt at Walmart.

No it is not as easy as buying a T shirt, and it should not be. However it is easy to buy a gun without any background check from another person, or in the parking lot of a gun show, or by a straw buyer.

So your post reflects your ignorance, and/or that you are a damn liar.

I'm sure you are aware that, at the very least, no person is allowed to sell their firearm to another if the other isn't allowed to possess the firearm, aren't you?

Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLaw

And I'm sure that happens everyday, and you know that too.

If every gun were registered, that issue could be resolved. Not in the sense it will prevent all gun sales to those who are not vetted, but to link the sale to the registered owner, and punish them. Of course that too won't prevent gun violence, but it sure would limit the number of those intent on criminal activity to obtain a gun.

But I believe each state should be allowed the right to require licensing of all gun owners, and the registration of all guns within their borders.

No....registration doesn't do any such thing......

Gun Registration does not stop or solve crimes......the only reason people like you want gun registration is so that you can later confiscate guns...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------

3/24/18



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.




3/24/18



https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[2aguy]

The OP is a false statement on its face. I cannot go into a gun store and walk out with a gun today. It is not like buying a t shirt at Walmart.

No it is not as easy as buying a T shirt, and it should not be. However it is easy to buy a gun without any background check from another person, or in the parking lot of a gun show, or by a straw buyer.

So your post reflects your ignorance, and/or that you are a damn liar.

I'm sure you are aware that, at the very least, no person is allowed to sell their firearm to another if the other isn't allowed to possess the firearm, aren't you?

Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLaw

And I'm sure that happens everyday, and you know that too.

If every gun were registered, that issue could be resolved. Not in the sense it will prevent all gun sales to those who are not vetted, but to link the sale to the registered owner, and punish them. Of course that too won't prevent gun violence, but it sure would limit the number of those intent on criminal activity to obtain a gun.

But I believe each state should be allowed the right to require licensing of all gun owners, and the registration of all guns within their borders.

but it sure would limit the number of those intent on criminal activity to obtain a gun.

It doesn't limit it now, genius......criminals use girlfriends, mothers, sisters and grand mothers to buy their guns for them......and prosecutors refuse to punish these straw buyers because they will likely not get convicted when they tell the jury they were under threat of violence and death if they didn't buy the gun....

Also...


Registries don’t solve straw-purchases.

If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to.

Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?