CDZ Do You Support Gun Control?

[M14 Shooter]

I assume she means illegal sales.

They sell 1000 guns to a "dealer" who sells the guns to 20 guys who sell the guns to 1000 guys and who knows where those guns are. No biggy, they'll just make more. Who has all these guns? We don't know. It's insane. Put GPS on every gun. LOL Lojack.

You have no idea what you;re talking about.

Like wild dogs the gun nuts will come out defending the status quo which they know is broken. And these guys are who the politicians are afraid of because they are stupid and they vote.

None of this sounds like you have anything of substance to add to the conversation.
Think about that -- think real hard - and get back to us.

Denial is not a river in Africa.

It is, apparently, wherever you happen to sit.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You are , of course, wrong on that point.

Let me be more clear: If you do not care if you are selling to a criminal, you are unlikely to burden yourself with the requirement to run a background check, especially in that it is impossible to prove that you even owned the gun in the first place.

Oh, i CLEARLY stated that the gun would have to be proven to have came directly from you to the person who committed the crime with it. But let me tell you , as someone who has interrogated criminals before, people who do such things, they tend to not cover for people. IOW they rat people out, especially if there is a nice little carrot on the end of the line if they do.

You telling the police that you bought a gun from me does not prove the sale, or my prior ownership.

LULZ you don't know much about forensic science if you don't think a gun can be traced to you once they have a name.

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?

But, that is all fluff anyway. You, and others, outright refusal to budge on this, is going to lead to more of the same, liberals doing whatever they want without any input from conservatives.

So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let me be more clear: If you do not care if you are selling to a criminal, you are unlikely to burden yourself with the requirement to run a background check, especially in that it is impossible to prove that you even owned the gun in the first place.

Oh, i CLEARLY stated that the gun would have to be proven to have came directly from you to the person who committed the crime with it. But let me tell you , as someone who has interrogated criminals before, people who do such things, they tend to not cover for people. IOW they rat people out, especially if there is a nice little carrot on the end of the line if they do.

You telling the police that you bought a gun from me does not prove the sale, or my prior ownership.

LULZ you don't know much about forensic science if you don't think a gun can be traced to you once they have a name.

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?

But, that is all fluff anyway. You, and others, outright refusal to budge on this, is going to lead to more of the same, liberals doing whatever they want without any input from conservatives.

So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

 

[sealybobo]

They sell 1000 guns to a "dealer" who sells the guns to 20 guys who sell the guns to 1000 guys and who knows where those guns are. No biggy, they'll just make more. Who has all these guns? We don't know. It's insane. Put GPS on every gun. LOL Lojack.

You have no idea what you;re talking about.

Like wild dogs the gun nuts will come out defending the status quo which they know is broken. And these guys are who the politicians are afraid of because they are stupid and they vote.

None of this sounds like you have anything of substance to add to the conversation.
Think about that -- think real hard - and get back to us.

Denial is not a river in Africa.

It is, apparently, wherever you happen to sit.

Hey, I just realized that every gun company needs what I sell. I was going to list all the gun manufacturers in America and bitch about them but I decided instead I'm going to prospect/call/contact them. I found a great website with a list and links to all their websites. Thanks.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Oh, i CLEARLY stated that the gun would have to be proven to have came directly from you to the person who committed the crime with it. But let me tell you , as someone who has interrogated criminals before, people who do such things, they tend to not cover for people. IOW they rat people out, especially if there is a nice little carrot on the end of the line if they do.

You telling the police that you bought a gun from me does not prove the sale, or my prior ownership.

LULZ you don't know much about forensic science if you don't think a gun can be traced to you once they have a name.

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?

But, that is all fluff anyway. You, and others, outright refusal to budge on this, is going to lead to more of the same, liberals doing whatever they want without any input from conservatives.

So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have no idea what you;re talking about.

Like wild dogs the gun nuts will come out defending the status quo which they know is broken. And these guys are who the politicians are afraid of because they are stupid and they vote.

None of this sounds like you have anything of substance to add to the conversation.
Think about that -- think real hard - and get back to us.

Denial is not a river in Africa.

It is, apparently, wherever you happen to sit.

Hey, I just realized that every gun company needs what I sell. I was going to list all the gun manufacturers in America and bitch about them but I decided instead I'm going to prospect/call/contact them. I found a great website with a list and links to all their websites. Thanks.

Um.... sure. Good to know that you're happy to make money from the gun industry.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh, i CLEARLY stated that the gun would have to be proven to have came directly from you to the person who committed the crime with it. But let me tell you , as someone who has interrogated criminals before, people who do such things, they tend to not cover for people. IOW they rat people out, especially if there is a nice little carrot on the end of the line if they do.

You telling the police that you bought a gun from me does not prove the sale, or my prior ownership.

LULZ you don't know much about forensic science if you don't think a gun can be traced to you once they have a name.

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?

But, that is all fluff anyway. You, and others, outright refusal to budge on this, is going to lead to more of the same, liberals doing whatever they want without any input from conservatives.

So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

How about less murders? We have that to offer. You want to carry a CCW? We don't want to stop you. We want to regulate the flow of guns that we all know wind up in criminals hands. We can stop it.

 

[sealybobo]

Like wild dogs the gun nuts will come out defending the status quo which they know is broken. And these guys are who the politicians are afraid of because they are stupid and they vote.

None of this sounds like you have anything of substance to add to the conversation.
Think about that -- think real hard - and get back to us.

Denial is not a river in Africa.

It is, apparently, wherever you happen to sit.

Hey, I just realized that every gun company needs what I sell. I was going to list all the gun manufacturers in America and bitch about them but I decided instead I'm going to prospect/call/contact them. I found a great website with a list and links to all their websites. Thanks.

Um.... sure. Good to know that you're happy to make money from the gun industry.

I don't want it to go away. I just want it better regulated. But that will mean less guns being mass produced and that will hurt my company so fuck it, leave the system the way it is.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You telling the police that you bought a gun from me does not prove the sale, or my prior ownership.

LULZ you don't know much about forensic science if you don't think a gun can be traced to you once they have a name.

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?

But, that is all fluff anyway. You, and others, outright refusal to budge on this, is going to lead to more of the same, liberals doing whatever they want without any input from conservatives.

So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

How about less murders? We have that to offer. You want to carry a CCW? We don't want to stop you. We want to regulate the flow of guns that we all know wind up in criminals hands. We can stop it.

LULZ obviously there ARE liberals who would like to do more than what you suggest, up to and including outlawing firearms altogether.

 

[sealybobo]

LULZ you don't know much about forensic science if you don't think a gun can be traced to you once they have a name.

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?

But, that is all fluff anyway. You, and others, outright refusal to budge on this, is going to lead to more of the same, liberals doing whatever they want without any input from conservatives.

So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

How about less murders? We have that to offer. You want to carry a CCW? We don't want to stop you. We want to regulate the flow of guns that we all know wind up in criminals hands. We can stop it.

LULZ obviously there ARE liberals who would like to do more than what you suggest, up to and including outlawing firearms altogether.

Well don't worry it won't happen. There are also liberals who would like to outlaw hunting. That's a very fringe element in our society. More people want gay marriage than want to do that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You telling the police that you bought a gun from me does not prove the sale, or my prior ownership.

LULZ you don't know much about forensic science if you don't think a gun can be traced to you once they have a name.

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?

But, that is all fluff anyway. You, and others, outright refusal to budge on this, is going to lead to more of the same, liberals doing whatever they want without any input from conservatives.

So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.

Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You telling the police that you bought a gun from me does not prove the sale, or my prior ownership.

LULZ you don't know much about forensic science if you don't think a gun can be traced to you once they have a name.

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?

But, that is all fluff anyway. You, and others, outright refusal to budge on this, is going to lead to more of the same, liberals doing whatever they want without any input from conservatives.

So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

How about less murders? We have that to offer. You want to carry a CCW? We don't want to stop you. We want to regulate the flow of guns that we all know wind up in criminals hands. We can stop it.

1: No you cannot:
2: You do not understand the issue presented here.
You want gun owners to give up some of their rights; you have no rights to offer them in return.
Thus, compromise is not possible.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

LULZ you don't know much about forensic science if you don't think a gun can be traced to you once they have a name.

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?

But, that is all fluff anyway. You, and others, outright refusal to budge on this, is going to lead to more of the same, liberals doing whatever they want without any input from conservatives.

So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.

Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

no no, no you don't. reread what I said.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

Now you COULD argue that certain restrictions which may be pointed out in the course of a background check and prevent one from BUYING a firearm are violations, but that is already settled law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?
So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.
Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

I already responded to this.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.
Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

I already responded to this.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

What could they offer that would make you say "okay I can live with universal background checks?" if the answer is nothing, then YOU are the problem, as much as liberals

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.
Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

I already responded to this.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

What could they offer that would make you say "okay I can live with universal background checks?" if the answer is nothing, then YOU are the problem, as much as liberals

So, in your book, gun owners should simply willing to give up their rights... for nothing?
Why should that make sense to us?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.
Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

I already responded to this.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

What could they offer that would make you say "okay I can live with universal background checks?" if the answer is nothing, then YOU are the problem, as much as liberals

So, in your book, gun owners should simply willing to give up their rights... for nothing?
Why should that make sense to us?

what right am I saying you should give up? You don't have a right not to have a background check done before you can purchase a gun, that is already established law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?
So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

How about less murders? We have that to offer. You want to carry a CCW? We don't want to stop you. We want to regulate the flow of guns that we all know wind up in criminals hands. We can stop it.

1: No you cannot:
2: You do not understand the issue presented here.
You want gun owners to give up some of their rights; you have no rights to offer them in return.
Thus, compromise is not possible.

What right?

The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Fuck you.

Does your mommy know you use words like this on her i-phone?

 

[sealybobo]

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?
So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.

Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

no no, no you don't. reread what I said.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

Now you COULD argue that certain restrictions which may be pointed out in the course of a background check and prevent one from BUYING a firearm are violations, but that is already settled law.

We need to keep better track of guns as they go through the manufacturing, sales and resale process. If too many of a gun sellers guns end up on the black market, we need to be able to track who the problem is. Every time you buy a gun it needs to be registered with the cops. Not only do you the buyer need to register it, so does the seller.

If we keep better track of gun sales, we will find out who the criminals really are and we will be able to stop them.

Gun nuts don't even want to have to register their guns. They think the government is going to round them up. Stupid, seeing as how almost everyone has a gun in America.

I want to manufacture grenades and sell them. I don't want to have to tell the government who's buying my grenades. Americans should have the right to own grenades for protection. And if the government or people want to stop me, they're going to have to give me something in return, because I'm holding the country hostage.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.
Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

I already responded to this.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

What could they offer that would make you say "okay I can live with universal background checks?" if the answer is nothing, then YOU are the problem, as much as liberals

So, in your book, gun owners should simply willing to give up their rights... for nothing?
Why should that make sense to us?

What right am I saying you should give up?

Apparently any right the liberals want, given that you argue that if gun owners are not willing to work wirth the liberals, they are part of the problem.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.