CDZ Do You Support Gun Control?

[2aguy]

I see it like this:
if you want to make sure your sale is legal, you already have the capacity to run a check on the buyer.
If you do not care, then you won't, regardless of the law.
Thus, there's no reason to force people to do so, and there's no reason to open the door for universal registration.
It cannot.

Oh, I don't believe anyone should be FORCED to run a background check.

Weren't you just proponnenting for UBCs?

I just think that if a gun is used in a crime and it is proven that you sold/gave the gun to the person who committed the crime without running a background check that you should be charged with a crime.

What crime would that be?

Accesory to whatever crime was committed with the weapon.

Legally selling a gun to someone doesn't qualify as an accessory.

Be reasonable and realistic.

I am.
-If you want to make sure your sale is legal, you already have the capacity to run a check on the buyer.
-If you do not care, then you won't, regardless of the law.
Thus, there's no reason to force people to do so, and there's no reason to open the door for universal registration.

You are , of course, wrong on that point. Let's take 100 people and apply any law. Probably 80 of those people wouldn't break whichever law we're talking about whether it was legal to do whatever or not. For example, let's use the most extreme law. Murder.

80 out of 100 people wouldn't murder someone, even if it were legal, we just have something in us that says "no that isn't right" that leaves 20 people who might commit murder, of those 20 probably only about 5 commit murder regardless of the law

Thus , we throw out the murder laws because 5 out of every 100 persons are going to murder someone anyway?

No..murderers are a tiny proportion of the population...

No one has ever suggested throwing out meaningful gun laws...that is what you guys say we say, amd we never do.....we say your ideas are not going to work and we show you why, then you say we don't want any gun laws and that isn't true.

it is against the law to use a gun to commit a crime...if you do you are arrested.

if you are a fleon who has a fun...you can be arrested.

those are gun laws that actually work and we support them...they actually target people who use guns to break the law, not people who make clerical errors...

and has been pointed out...mass shooters have passed all gun laws or avoided them...dittos refular criminals...they are not stopped at all....

what is so hard to ipunderstand about that....?

 

[2aguy]

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

Fully agree.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Fully disagree.

Liberals don't do "gun control". Know that Second Amendment? We wrote it.

No, actual liberals wrote it...you guys...you took the term "liberal" and use it to hide the fact that you are leftwing, big government statists..the exact opposite of a true "liberal."

Then obviously you remain ignorant of what "Liberal" actually means.

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

Fully agree.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Fully disagree.

Liberals don't do "gun control". Know that Second Amendment? We wrote it.

No, liberals didn't write the 2nd Amendment, and it isn't even a liberal /conservative issue either.

It's a control issue. no different than those who wish to use the government to outlaw abortion, or gay marriage, or discrimination or what have you, It's all about some people want to use the power of government to force others to behave in a certain manner that is inconsistent with our founding principles. That being, if you aren't hurting someone else, the government will leave you alone.

Correct, it is indeed a control issue of using the power of gummint to enforce behaviour. That's exactly why it's not a "Liberal" approach.

The Founders though ---- blatant Liberals. That means yanking the reins of power from the authoritarian church/nobility class and turning it over to the People. Do we have kings ruling by Divine Right? No we do not. Thanks to those Liberals. The same ones who wrote the Second Amendment, indeed the entire Bill of Rights.

i know exactly what the definition of liberal is....you are not a liberal...left wing statists have hijacked the word "liberal" because allows them to hide their statism. there is nothing liberal about gun grabbers.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

Liberals only want to “compromise”, because they're now on the side that is hopelessly losing.

It's like having caught a burglar that broke into your home and stole ten thousand dollars worth of your belongings. You're going to take all your stuff back, and have him arrested and thrown in prison. He begs you to “compromise” by letting him go and letting him keep half the stuff he stole from you. That's the position in which liberals now find themselves on this issue, and that's the kind of “compromise” for which they are begging.

F*** them. I'm taking all my stuff back, and the burglar is going to prison.

 

[2aguy]

I see it like this:
if you want to make sure your sale is legal, you already have the capacity to run a check on the buyer.
If you do not care, then you won't, regardless of the law.
Thus, there's no reason to force people to do so, and there's no reason to open the door for universal registration.
It cannot.

Oh, I don't believe anyone should be FORCED to run a background check.

Weren't you just proponnenting for UBCs?

I just think that if a gun is used in a crime and it is proven that you sold/gave the gun to the person who committed the crime without running a background check that you should be charged with a crime.

What crime would that be?

Accesory to whatever crime was committed with the weapon.

Legally selling a gun to someone doesn't qualify as an accessory.

Be reasonable and realistic.

I am.
-If you want to make sure your sale is legal, you already have the capacity to run a check on the buyer.
-If you do not care, then you won't, regardless of the law.
Thus, there's no reason to force people to do so, and there's no reason to open the door for universal registration.

You are , of course, wrong on that point. Let's take 100 people and apply any law. Probably 80 of those people wouldn't break whichever law we're talking about whether it was legal to do whatever or not. For example, let's use the most extreme law. Murder.

80 out of 100 people wouldn't murder someone, even if it were legal, we just have something in us that says "no that isn't right" that leaves 20 people who might commit murder, of those 20 probably only about 5 commit murder regardless of the law

Thus , we throw out the murder laws because 5 out of every 100 persons are going to murder someone anyway?

Nope...that is the wrong analogy.....what you guys want is to enact laws that target the 95 people.....who don't murder anyone..ever......while the same law does nothing to stop those 5 murderers.....

this is more accurate...your 5 guys are drunk drivers.....so you want to stop them...right...

so you create a law that says all drivers must blow into a tube to start their cars....even though they have not been convicted of driving drunk...while the drunk drivers keep driving drunk...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Where, in a “strict interpretation” of “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find it allowable to require any of the people to undergo and pass a background check as a condition of being allowed to exercise that right?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

You don't have that to offer.

You can tell me that if I give up any of my rights, that you will somehow magically cause fewer guns to wind up in the hand of criminals, and fewer murders to occur, but you and I both know that that promise is a flat-out lie, on which you have no intention of delivering, and on which you could not deliver even if you intended to.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[2aguy]

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

just about all 12 of those facts are wrong.


Gun ownership is not lower...reporting that people have a gun on surveys is down.

Switzerland only keeps track of military supplied ammo, not private ammo...so they are wring about that....and there are more that aren't true...but I am on an ipad and it is a hassle to go back and forth...

the atticle is anti gun crap.....

 

[2aguy]

Legally selling a gun to someone doesn't qualify as an accessory.
I am.
-If you want to make sure your sale is legal, you already have the capacity to run a check on the buyer.
-If you do not care, then you won't, regardless of the law.
Thus, there's no reason to force people to do so, and there's no reason to open the door for universal registration.

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.


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.

Conservative rages against the gun nuts: Firearms should be an earned privilege, not an absolute right

Yes, all of the governments that murdered their citizens in the millions also believed gun ownership was a privlege..a privelege of the people in power and not their victims...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

The Constitution clearly says otherwise. Inherent in the right to keep and bear arms is the right to manufacture, buy, sell, trade, or otherwise exchange arms. A right to keep and bear a thing is rather meaningless, if government has the authority to prevent anyone from acquiring that thing.

 

[2aguy]

11 myths about the future of gun control, debunked after the Charleston shooting

10 of the 11 are wrong..........

 

[2aguy]

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.

no you can't they can't stop it in any other country either....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

By asking for universal back ground checks, what right are you being asked to give up?

Answer or I'll move on.

Already answered, and even if it hadn't been, it's obvious. That you do not like the answer does not mean that the answer was not given, nor that the answer is invalid.

 

[2aguy]

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.

sorry...guns are stolen or bought gpby people who can pass universal background checks and then sold or given to criminals thereby wrecking any chance to tradk them.....


The Supreme Court jas already said that criminals do not need to register their illegal guns because it violates their 5th Amemdment right against self incrimination...now what?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

eh, im out of the thread, M14 has no desire to have an honest intellectual discussion

 

[Pogo]

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

Fully agree.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Fully disagree.

Liberals don't do "gun control". Know that Second Amendment? We wrote it.

No, actual liberals wrote it...you guys...you took the term "liberal" and use it to hide the fact that you are leftwing, big government statists..the exact opposite of a true "liberal."

Then obviously you remain ignorant of what "Liberal" actually means.

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

Fully agree.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Fully disagree.

Liberals don't do "gun control". Know that Second Amendment? We wrote it.

No, liberals didn't write the 2nd Amendment, and it isn't even a liberal /conservative issue either.

It's a control issue. no different than those who wish to use the government to outlaw abortion, or gay marriage, or discrimination or what have you, It's all about some people want to use the power of government to force others to behave in a certain manner that is inconsistent with our founding principles. That being, if you aren't hurting someone else, the government will leave you alone.

Correct, it is indeed a control issue of using the power of gummint to enforce behaviour. That's exactly why it's not a "Liberal" approach.

The Founders though ---- blatant Liberals. That means yanking the reins of power from the authoritarian church/nobility class and turning it over to the People. Do we have kings ruling by Divine Right? No we do not. Thanks to those Liberals. The same ones who wrote the Second Amendment, indeed the entire Bill of Rights.

i know exactly what the definition of liberal is....you are not a liberal...left wing statists have hijacked the word "liberal" because allows them to hide their statism. there is nothing liberal about gun grabbers.

I know nothing of "gun grabbers". But your conflation of that with Liberal just reconfirms all over again that you don't have a clue what the terms you're tossing around actually mean.

Which I already noted.

 

[Wyld Kard]

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

Fully agree.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Fully disagree.

Liberals don't do "gun control". Know that Second Amendment? We wrote it.

Liberals don't do "gun control".

Yeah, sure they don't.

Liberals have pushed for gun control and more of it because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection. The political effect of gun control is to shift voters leftward, and hence the primary supporters of gun control are the liberal media and leftist politicians.

 

[Pogo]

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

Fully agree.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Fully disagree.

Liberals don't do "gun control". Know that Second Amendment? We wrote it.

Liberals don't do "gun control".

Yeah, sure they don't.

Liberals have pushed for gun control and more of it because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection.

Bolshoi. Liberalism has no interest in making voters "dependent on government". And it doesn't "push for gun control".
See the first part of the original quote --- that I fully agreed with.

The political effect of gun control is to shift voters leftward, and hence the primary supporters of gun control are the liberal media and leftist politicians.

"Gun control", depending on what you might mean by that, might be proffered BY leftists... but that's got nothing to do with "Liberal". And in any case the end result of passing a law is not attracting voters to the side that passed it. That's absurd, and a non sequitur.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Are there any Americans who could not be said to have "mental health issues" if a loose enough definition is used?

Are you worried?

 

[2aguy]

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.

Fully agree.

For liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about suppressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Fully disagree.

Liberals don't do "gun control". Know that Second Amendment? We wrote it.

Liberals don't do "gun control".

Yeah, sure they don't.

Liberals have pushed for gun control and more of it because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection.

Bolshoi. Liberalism has no interest in making voters "dependent on government". And it doesn't "push for gun control".
See the first part of the original quote --- that I fully agreed with.

The political effect of gun control is to shift voters leftward, and hence the primary supporters of gun control are the liberal media and leftist politicians.

"Gun control", depending on what you might mean by that, might be proffered BY leftists... but that's got nothing to do with "Liberal". And in any case the end result of passing a law is not attracting voters to the side that passed it. That's absurd, and a non sequitur.

I know, you think you are clever by lying about the modern meaning of the word "liberal." The modern meaning of the word "liberal" is a lover of a central state authority with control over almost all aspects of life.....

The true definition of the word "liberal" today is the modern American Conservative, the real liberals.....

 

[Vigilante]