Gun Control question for liberals?

[Rigby5]

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?

Actually, confiscating over 300 million guns is not practical

So the emphasis has to be on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies and those with depression

This means strict reporting rules, registration, licensing and background checks

Also means banning high capacity magazines and military grade weapons

Police can have as many guns as they wish

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

No, we do NOT do this for cars.
There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars, even though cars are not even a right like self defense is.
In fact, there is no federal database on felons, wife beaters, crazies, or manic depressives, and it would always be illegal to try to make one.
The federal government could not even dictate a uniform speed limit on the interstate highways.
Only states or municipalities have any jurisdiction over matters like these.

Nor is there any point to such a national registry.
That would require anyone dealing with anything remotely dangerous, to then waste huge amounts of time trying to determine who was safe to buy what.
When clearly the only reasonable thing to do is leave people alone unless a judge has ruled them dangerous, and remanded them into someone's custody.
Anything else, is totally and completely illegal.
You can't have a democratic republic where everyone only has some varying degree of freedom, depending on what some federal database claims.

Adding more laws is not going to make anyone safer, because criminals will just buy illegally because they already intend to violate more serious laws already.
You don't achieve freedom with more laws, but fewer laws.

 

[Defiant1]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually home invasions are pretty darn rare, and AKs are sloppy as fuck, not more accurate.

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed by that gun is a member of the family.

That simply is not true.
While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.
Suicide is a normal and reasonable choice at some point in everyone's life, as long as physician assisted suicide is not an option.
Second is that millions of serious violent crimes are prevented every year by people using guns, without anyone having to be shot, much less killed.
So the idea firearms pose a significant danger to a household, is just flat out false.
Home invasions are not at all rare.
I have had 10 car break ins, 4 garage break ins, and 2 home invasions already.
Never had to fire a shot, did not try to apprehend anyone, but could not have scared them away unless I was armed.
Every household used to be armed and still should be.
Any household not armed, is being irresponsible.
The average is everyone will need to be armed at least 2.5 times in a lifetime.

While suicides do account for half the gun deaths, that is NOT something anyone else should try to stop.

I wonder if that would be your response if it we were talking about your son or daughter

Of course it would be.
If I had screwed up as a parent so badly that my children wanted to die, I would be the last person to then force them to not do what they wanted.
Suicide is caused by many long standing failures by family, health care, society, etc.
You can't fix it by passing laws to put more people in jail.
That is even worse, and deserves punishment.

Seek help, it is available.

If you were even remotely honest, what you would want is prosecution of big pharma companies that pedal all the anti-depressants that cause almost all the bad suicides.
Kids are supposed to be anxious, so it is wrong to give them anti-depressants, and what anti-depressants do is make people not care about anything anymore, which is the main cause of suicides.

 

[Rigby5]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Except that since people lie, there is no way background checks can possibly prevent any crime.
Not only have all the mass shootings been from people who could legally buy weapons, but anyone can easily get someone else to make the purchase for them, or buy illegally from a drug dealer.
The ONLY thing background checks can do is to intimidate and harm honest people who want to be armed for valid reasons.
For example, a couple breaks up, the woman is threatened, but then is forced to wait a week before being allowed to get a weapon for defense.

And the biggest liars of all are government, like the Iraqi WMD Congress insisted existed.
So you would prefer to give the lairs total control over our lives?
I thought this was supposed to be a democratic republic, where we were supposed to be the only source of all authority?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

 

[Crepitus]

Fox news told him so.

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

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.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

And if you never expect it and it happens what do you do?

And FYI it does happen.

I was set upon by 3 thugs when I was 18 when I was doing nothing but walking home after a double shift and was left on the street in the dead of winter with 3 cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital, a lacerated spleen and a concussion.

I still have the scar under my left eye to remind me that there is real violence in this world

Yeah and Mikey was beat up by three Mexicans and odius was beat up by three black guys and and and and and.........

All those stories sound suspiciously similar.....

 

[Rigby5]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

And where is that supposed to come from?
Same with felons not being allowed to vote.
According to the principles as I understand them, if you don't allow felons to vote, then you have to stop taxing them.
Taxation without representation is illegal.
And how can anyone else claim that someone, even a convicted felon, loses the right to self defense?
There are lots of place like in Alaska, where a person without a firearm become bear food.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Except that since people lie, there is no way background checks can possibly prevent any crime.
Not only have all the mass shootings been from people who could legally buy weapons, but anyone can easily get someone else to make the purchase for them, or buy illegally from a drug dealer.
The ONLY thing background checks can do is to intimidate and harm honest people who want to be armed for valid reasons.
For example, a couple breaks up, the woman is threatened, but then is forced to wait a week before being allowed to get a weapon for defense.

And the biggest liars of all are government, like the Iraqi WMD Congress insisted existed.
So you would prefer to give the lairs total control over our lives?
I thought this was supposed to be a democratic republic, where we were supposed to be the only source of all authority?

Well, since lying can not be stopped, we might as well stop asking people to swear to tell the truth in court, shouldn't we?

 

[Rigby5]

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

Sure, but then only if the government would allow you to do a background check yourself before you transferred the gun.
The fault is with the federal government, which won't allow anyone but an FFL to do a background check.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

Sure, but then only if the government would allow you to do a background check yourself before you transferred the gun.
The fault is with the federal government, which won't allow anyone but an FFL to do a background check.

I have no problem paying a licensed firearm dealer a few bucks to do a background check. To be even more specific, I have 2 high powered rifles to sell, but I do not want them to go to anyone I do not know.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

Interesting that you believe that most liberals don't like private citizens owning guns. I am a liberal, and I own 5 firearms. In fact, all of my friends are liberals and none of them has a problem with private citizens owning guns. Tell us. What is it like living in the world of paranoia?

they keep confusing liberals with leftist,,,its a common mistake for kool-aid drinkers,,,

 

[Crepitus]

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?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

 

[Rigby5]

That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.

It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.

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.

It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of preference.

If you ever used a gun before (and I'm sure you haven't) higher capacity magazines allow you to focus on your shooting instead of reloading all the time. Furthermore if faced by several attackers instead of one, more rounds gives you better odds of defeating your enemies. The best reason is that most shots are misses. If you are attacked by three people, and only have a six round magazine, chances are you're going to lose that fight unless you are within 6 feet of them when shooting.

So, what do you do where you expect to be confronted by 3 armed opponents?

And if you're within 6 feet an AK is the wrong weapon.

And if you never expect it and it happens what do you do?

And FYI it does happen.

I was set upon by 3 thugs when I was 18 when I was doing nothing but walking home after a double shift and was left on the street in the dead of winter with 3 cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital, a lacerated spleen and a concussion.

I still have the scar under my left eye to remind me that there is real violence in this world

Yeah and Mikey was beat up by three Mexicans and odius was beat up by three black guys and and and and and.........

All those stories sound suspiciously similar.....

Over 1 million serious and violent crimes succeed every single year.
There are likely millions more that simply fail or are not reported for some reason.
Each and every person has an average risk of being victim of 2.5 of these serious and violent crimes in their lifetime.
The stat is that 1 of 5 women are rape victims in their life.
If you do not think that all people should not be armed all the time, you are wrong.

 

[Crepitus]

Yes they are. The fact is most people that die from gunshot wounds are self inflicted, suicide or accidents which account for 57% of death from gunshot. Only about 42% are homicides. Of those that are homicides approximately half are classified as domestic disputes homicides. Yet most people that buy guns for protection are thinking of protecting the family from home invasion and gang violence. However, the most likely person to be killed is a member of the family.

Your point=dipshit?

You came all the way from the canal to be "Fuck You"'d by me.

GTFO HERE

I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.

That is such a fucking lie.

We have all been trained and taught to respect the destructive power of firearms in my house.

I started them out at a very young age. My kids have EXCELLENT safety discipline.



.

And still, numbers don't lie.

But commies do lie.

Freedom is more important. If you don't agree, perhaps you belong on a place with less freedom.

.

Lol, there are commies here? I see liberals and conservatives and recent history tell us which one of those is the habitual liar (tRump).

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

You need airdropped into the middle of the Everglades at night. No gun for you!

 

[Crepitus]

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".

Yup. Bigreb wants to be a combination of Hulk hogan and John Wayne, but he's more like Mr Limpet. He's lots of fun.

Ah, I've barely met him and already classified him as "blow hard wannabe, no useful contributions expected, unworthy of response"

 

[Marion Morrison]

Your point=dipshit?

You came all the way from the canal to be "Fuck You"'d by me.

GTFO HERE

I would have thought the point was obvious. You aren't making you or your family safer by owning firearms.

That is such a fucking lie.

We have all been trained and taught to respect the destructive power of firearms in my house.

I started them out at a very young age. My kids have EXCELLENT safety discipline.



.

And still, numbers don't lie.

But commies do lie.

Freedom is more important. If you don't agree, perhaps you belong on a place with less freedom.

.

Lol, there are commies here? I see liberals and conservatives and recent history tell us which one of those is the habitual liar (tRump).

You don't know what a liberal is, Commie swine.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

While I would be willing to accept competency testing and licensing even, it would have to be state of local.
The Constitution is clear there is no federal jurisdiction at all over any weapons.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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?

"Getting guns from criminals" is pointless. That horse left the barn too long ago. Nor is "if everyone turned in their guns" realistic either.

Your premise in your first sentence is nonfunctional, and a strawman. I guess I could add that your thread title is fake too, since you're not posing a question when you've already tilted the answer.

/——-/ The OPs first sentence, “The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. ” is not a Strawman. It’s accurate and the libs have challenged the 2nd Amendment in court claiming it only applies to a well regulated militia. You owe the OP an apology.

Yes, it does fail as a strawman fallacy.

The fallacy manifests when a lie is contrived about the opponent’s position on an issue, in this case the lie that ‘liberals’ oppose the private ownership of firearms – which is clearly untrue.

Then the lie (strawman) is attacked by the individual who created the lie claiming ‘victory.’

When an arguer resorts to sophistry such as a strawman fallacy he has at that point lost the ‘argument.’

Your post also fails as a strawman fallacy – a lie.

Since Heller/McDonald ‘liberals’ have made no argument in the courts that the Second Amendment doesn’t codify an individual right to possess a firearm; in fact, ‘liberals’ support Heller/McDonald as settled, accepted case law as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the firearm regulatory measures they advocate for are perfectly consistent with that case law.

The OP is entitled to no apology.

No apology required. I stated an opinion based on tenor. Here’s another one on what I perceive from Conservative tenor: Conservatives LIKE private citizens owning guns. Their are going to be exceptions in both cases. I based my opinion on my observations. It’s an opinion; I did not state an absolute.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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?

Actually I'm about as liberal as they come and I don't have a problem with private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with any Joe off the street being able to get one with no training, no insurance, and so on. Let's license them like cars. Some minimal training, laws on storage, and require liability insurance, along with mandatory background checks on all purchases.

Licenses are unConstitutional, since owning and carrying a gun is a Right, unlike driving. Training requirements....like Literacy tests, will be used to keep people from exercising a Right....this is what they do in Europe to keep normal people from even trying to own a gun, the training requirements and fees are so high, only the rich and politically connected have access to guns.

What does a background check do? Could you explain that, since criminals do not go through background checks and mass public shooters pass them easily......

Please point out where it says you can't require a competency test and licensing? Seems to me that would fall into line with the "well regulated" part of your militia

Voting does not currently require a competency test. Should we require competency for rights granted by the Constituion? How about competency for free speech?