Gun Control question for liberals?

[Crepitus]

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

Of course it will. Straw purchasers will be limited once patterns are noted, as will purchasers who fail to secure weapons from thieves.

Na, not really

Again no intelligent answer.

You may not be smart enough to be having this conversation.

 

[Crepitus]

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

Very few firearms used in crimes are purchased from gun stores or gun shows. Most are stolen or purchased through straw buyers. So you could expand background checks all you like, but it won't put a dent in the criminal problems we have.

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

Lol
Abuse, you can’t trust the federal government to do the right thing. It’s impossible

Third time without a real answer.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Fact: ‘liberals’ do not oppose the private ownership of guns.

Fact: there are no ‘gun grabbers’; no one advocates for the ‘confiscation’ of firearms, ‘liberals’ in particular.

Fact: ‘liberals’ own guns, carry guns pursuant to lawful self-defense, and enjoy the shooting sports.

Fact: ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment case law, consider that case law to be settled and accepted, and advocate for Constitutional firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Fact: the thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

True, we liberals do not oppose the private ownership of firearms, we own guns, we are not gun grabbers, we defend the 2nd, BUT...

commies do not.

Commies want to ban and confiscate. There are lots of commies.

.

 

[Crepitus]

And still, numbers don't lie.

no they dont,,,

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Opinion pieces are not facts.

but the info they use most of the time is fact,,,and in this case your argument fails,,,

Im afraid that's incorrect. Opinion pieces tend to to cherry pick or outright misrepresent facts, that's why they are published as opinion instead of facts or news. It's not exclusively a republican thing (although they do it more often) democrats have been guilty of it as well.

I know you are just going to attack the messenger again instead of addressing the message, but inside this article it give CDC stats that say at a min 500K lives are saved each yr by guns, and that number could go as high as 3 million,,,

now go ahead and attack the messenger again,,,


WAITING,,,

So, why don't you post up those CDC stats for us instead of bogus opinion pieces?

 

[Kilroy2]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Well that is a conserve's interpretation and we know that it is somewhat simplistic

I am for gun control which is different than "Turned over their guns"

Explain why would anyone need an assault rifle when they can have various other weapons with no problems

I am for gun registration is there a problem with registering your gun

You can keep your guns but the wild wild west is long gone.

 

[Crepitus]

When you start actually reading my posts instead of making shit up maybe someone here will take you seriously.


But I doubt it.

dont worry I read every word,,,,

You've just told a lie.

maybe its you and how you present your case thats the problem,,,

like when you said burglars preferred empty houses instead of saying they preferred houses where nobody is home,,,

Anyone else would have known what I meant. Your lack of critical thinking skills is not my problem.

but you said I need to read what you say when commenting,,,

and thats what you said,,,

specifics matter bob

Ah, you doint the "I'm a stupid republican" bit.

My bad, carry on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fact: ‘liberals’ do not oppose the private ownership of guns.

Fact: there are no ‘gun grabbers’; no one advocates for the ‘confiscation’ of firearms, ‘liberals’ in particular.

Fact: ‘liberals’ own guns, carry guns pursuant to lawful self-defense, and enjoy the shooting sports.

Fact: ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment case law, consider that case law to be settled and accepted, and advocate for Constitutional firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Fact: the thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

New York newspaper removes gun permit database from website after outcry

Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns


‘High risk’ label from feds puts gun sellers in banks’ crosshairs, hurts business

Senate Dems, Led by Feinstein, Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

Tyrannical: Oregon Initiative Looks To Straight Up Confiscate Firearms From Law-Abiding Citizens

New Jersey Declares War On Its Residents: Plans Door-To-Door Gun Confiscation Campaign

 

[Crepitus]

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

sorry sweety but your car isnt a protected right,,,

since all background checks violate that right , them and the NRA can fuck themselves,,,

Why would background checks violate your rights?

because without them I dont get the gun,,,

INFRINGE!!!!

You mean "STUPIDITY!"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's the same klown who, when he was here years ago, came on here demanding I "get the fuck out of HIS state".

Since I've been here longer than you I didn't come here I was already here

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ You gun grabbers don’t fool us. Liberals Now Openly Admit: ‘We Must Destroy the Second Amendment’
View attachment 268306

Yyyyyyyeeeeaaahhhhh ummmmmmm...... you just posted a link to Alex John Brinkley Jones making the same bullshit term conflation that the OP did.

You DO realize that makes our point all over again, do you not?

/——-/,Oh you’d Grab our guns if you thought you’d succeed No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise

Since you already made this personal Squimpy, you go ahead and show the class anywhere I've posted anything remotely about wanting to "grab guns" in the six and a half years I've been here. Ever. Anywhere.

Go ahead. The whole world's waiting.

Come on Zippo, go fucking find it. It was the very issue I joined to jump into. There's plenty of material on the topic with my name on it. Go fetch.


Fucking DUMBASS.

/——/ Sorry, I never set up a log of gun grabber posts admitting they want to grab our guns.

Exactly. You have no such evidence because you just pulled it out of your ass. Which makes you a liar, and thus dismissed.

I know EXACTLY what I've posted on this site, and elsewhere. Every god damned one.

/—-/ my inability to find a post where you admit you want to grab guns proves what?
Yes, They DO Want to Take Your Guns Away. They Do.

 

[progressive hunter]

no they dont,,,

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Opinion pieces are not facts.

but the info they use most of the time is fact,,,and in this case your argument fails,,,

Im afraid that's incorrect. Opinion pieces tend to to cherry pick or outright misrepresent facts, that's why they are published as opinion instead of facts or news. It's not exclusively a republican thing (although they do it more often) democrats have been guilty of it as well.

I know you are just going to attack the messenger again instead of addressing the message, but inside this article it give CDC stats that say at a min 500K lives are saved each yr by guns, and that number could go as high as 3 million,,,

now go ahead and attack the messenger again,,,


WAITING,,,

So, why don't you post up those CDC stats for us instead of bogus opinion pieces?

they were in the articles,,,



critical thinking doesnt seem to be your thing,,,

 

[Crepitus]

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

sorry sweety but your car isnt a protected right,,,

since all background checks violate that right , them and the NRA can fuck themselves,,,

Why would background checks violate your rights?

Lol
We already have background checks on all firearms purchased in retail, you fucking retard.

Yes, there are some background checks.

Not enough.

 

[Crepitus]

So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?

Not for hunting.

Not for target shooting.

Why?

BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.

Why do you need unfettered & unlicensed internet access? Why do you have the need to go to any church you want or not at all without some sort of license from the govt? See how this works...

Don't be stupid son. None of those things are potentially deadly like a firearm is. Although the church thing can lead to the misuse of them sometimes.

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

I have never heard of any place ever mandating safety inspections on any car, ever.
All there has ever been in any of the dozen states I have lived in, is emissions test, and even that is only in large cities. Mandated car inspections likely are illegal.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Well that is a conserve's interpretation and we know that it is somewhat simplistic

I am for gun control which is different than "Turned over their guns"

Explain why would anyone need an assault rifle when they can have various other weapons with no problems

I am for gun registration is there a problem with registering your gun

You can keep your guns but the wild wild west is long gone.

The problem is that Democrats can't be trusted. They've proven that repeatedly over the years. They say they'll be happy with X, but once they get X, they demand Y, then Z, then back to A.

I remember many years ago when the left said they only wanted to remove lead from products like gasoline and paint. That's all they wanted, and they'd be happy. Next thing you know they went after home incinerators, then fluorocarbons, then anti-freeze, then cafe standards. Fast forward to today, and every single item you buy in the store has some intrinsic green cost to it.

I remember when the left said gays should be let out of the closet. That's all they wanted, just to be open about their sexuality. Fast forward to today, gays are not only getting married, but they were able to force all states into gay marriage. They are adopting kids that should be with a natural couple. They are in our parks in front of our children holding and kissing each other.

I remember when the left said they wanted no smoking in movie theaters. That's all they wanted, and they'll be happy. Fast forward to today, and smoking is banned in all public places including work. Some you can't even smoke outside in parks or on the beach. In my state, you can't even smoke in a bar.

Now the left is saying all they want is gun registration. Just give us gun registration, and we'll be happy and go away. We really don't ultimately want to take away your guns. Sorry, but you have a long history of that not being true. Gun registration is like smoking, gays, and environment. It's only the first step to what you ultimately want.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If very few guns used in crimes are bought from those sources, it shows the effectiveness of background checks. Why wouldn't you want to add guns bought from individual sellers to that list of effective ways to keep guns out of criminal's hands?

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

 

[Crepitus]

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

No one law will stop all related crimes. Only a child would think they could. There are laws against murder, rape, and theft, should those laws be eliminated because they don't stop every murder, rape, or theft?

And The federal government has no right to know how many and what types of firearms law-abiding citizens own.

Again with no intelligent answer. That's #4 btw.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's me stop whining
How did that background check work in the mass shooting at the church in texas?

No one law will stop all related crimes. Only a child would think they could. There are laws against murder, rape, and theft, should those laws be eliminated because they don't stop every murder, rape, or theft?

And The federal government has no right to know how many and what types of firearms law-abiding citizens own.

Again with no intelligent answer. That's #4 btw.

What part of "limited government" do you not understand?

.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sort of, but remember that the South used to have what is known as Yellow Dog Democrats, that were really what would be called Republicans, but the south could not because that had the association with the Party of Lincoln as its beginning.
So it was southern democrats who originally supported gun control, but they were not real democrats are at all liberal. They were for wealthy minority ruling over the poor majority by force, and that is the opposite of liberal.
I think current gun control comes from the Clintons who were never really democrats but southern Yellow Dogs, who were never remotely liberal.
The fact they have taken over the democratic party is one of the biggest disasters this country has ever seen.
Liberals are those who maintain individual liberty at all cost, and they really don't exist any more.
That is a most frightening prospect.
It forces real liberals like me, to vote independent, like Jill Stein.

Bill's wife was planting seeds of confusion just a short 12 years ago leading the sheep down the path of disarray... Democrats are no longer liberals... They have followed the female Eugene V. Debbs down the trodden track of Progressivism...

 

[BULLDOG]

Fact: ‘liberals’ do not oppose the private ownership of guns.

Fact: there are no ‘gun grabbers’; no one advocates for the ‘confiscation’ of firearms, ‘liberals’ in particular.

Fact: ‘liberals’ own guns, carry guns pursuant to lawful self-defense, and enjoy the shooting sports.

Fact: ‘liberals’ support and defend Second Amendment case law, consider that case law to be settled and accepted, and advocate for Constitutional firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Fact: the thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

Fact: Liberals wrote the Second Amendment.

I mean literally.

I see you have no idea what the purpose of the second amendment is for.
It's not about hunting nor is it about target shooting
What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

If your gonna try to push that fantasy about overthrowing the government please spare me. It's bullshit and you all know it even though you won't admit it.

And my history is just that: mine. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway.

So you don't know the purpose of the second amendment. And you have no qualitative experience in the use of deadly force?
No history is not your's to bastardize it

You still using that fake AVI?

That's the same klown who, when he was here years ago, came on here demanding I "get the fuck out of HIS state".

Since I've been here longer than you I didn't come here I was already here

Shup reb. You're a dumb goober. You are dumb no matter how you feel about gun control.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's not easier to burglarize an empty house, just much, much safer.

Of course you don't shoot rusty guns, but I don't know what that has to do with your stance against Ak"s. Any non stainless steel gun can rust if you don't keep it well oiled.

Ummm no. The vast majority of of property crime is done while the owner isn't around because it's easier. Safer too, yes but mostly criminals don't think that way. Effort expended vs gain realized is mostly what they think about (not in those words I'm sure).

And you totally missed the point on my statement about AKs.

Well, it's like I tell all the anti-gunners around here. Get a huge sign made that says THIS HOUSE HAS NO FIREARMS and put that on your front porch. Get back us in a few months and let us know how it worked out for you........if you're still alive.

Criminals are not scared of confrontation, just equal or more powerful confrontation. It's why a majority of these mass shootings take place in gun free zones. They are assured nobody has a firearm but them. When they do break into occupied homes, it's usually very elderly people or people with disabilities.

Actually criminals are scared of confrontation. That's why they orey on the weak, and the unoccupied home presents little.risk of confrontation. Your arguments do not hold water, and your "no guns here" strawman is just silly considering the liberals in the discussion have already said they have guns.

You missed the point which is the reason unarmed homes are safe is because they can be armed. Take that away, and the criminals know all homes are unarmed which gives them the upper hand because they will still have guns. Then you will see a huge escalation in occupied home robberies.

Not likely. Most burglars aren't even armed. Your premise is based on sheer paranoia.

Burglary is rare because some of us are armed. You're welcome.

.