Gun Control question for liberals?

[2aguy]

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

The same place where Literacy tests created by democrats to keep blacks from voting was declared unConstitutional..... you could try the 14th Amendment, section 1.

Where do you buy the moronity that impels you to just make shit up on a message board and think that nobody's ever going to fact-check you? Where do you get that shit? eBay?

>> African-American suffrage was the subject of much debate at the 1821 and 1846 state constitutional conventions, and the transcripts contain some astounding racist rhetoric. A recurring theme was an alleged criminal propensity among African-Americans as a reason to restrict the black vote. Delegate Samuel Young implored in 1821: "Look to your jails and penitentiaries. By whom are they filled? By the very race whom is now proposed to cloth with the power of deciding upon your political rights."

By 1872, New York was the only state to make property ownership a voting requirement exclusively for African-Americans. But the 15th Amendment to the Constitution forced New York to revisit its constitution.

Gov. John Hoffman convened a few dozen "eminent citizens" to figure out what to do. Hoffman's commission eliminated a few sections and added some words here and there. The result was a Jim Crow "bait and switch" that remains the law today. << --- Jim Crow Haunts NY Blacks​

Neither "Democrats" nor "Republicans" existed in 1821 but both did by 1872. So leave us check the party breakdown of the New York State Legislature at that time:

Party control Republican (98-26-4)​

Oopsie.

The entire south kept freed Blacks from voting using literacy tests....you asshat....

Literacy test - Wikipedia

From the 1890s to the 1960s, many state governments in the United States administered literacy tests to prospective voters purportedly to test their literacy in order to vote. In practice, these tests were intended to disenfranchise racial minorities. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process starting in the late 19th century. Literacy tests, along with poll taxes, residency and property restrictions and extra-legal activities (violence, intimidation)[2] were all used to deny suffrage to African Americans.

>> The literacy test was a device to restrict the total number of immigrants while not offending the large element of ethnic voters. The "old" immigration (British, Irish, German, Scandinavian) had fallen off and was replaced by a "new" immigration from Italy, Russia and other points in Southern and eastern Europe. The "old" immigrants were voters and strongly approved of restricting the "new" immigrants. All groups of American voters strongly opposed Chinese and Asian immigration. The 1896 Republican platform called for a literacy test.[10]

.... In 1906, the House Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon, a conservative Republican, worked aggressively to defeat a proposed literacy test for immigrants. A product of the western frontier, Cannon felt that moral probity was the only acceptable test for the quality of an immigrant. He worked with Secretary of State Elihu Root and President Theodore Roosevelt to set up the "Dillingham Commission," a blue ribbon body of experts that produced a 41-volume study of immigration. The Commission recommended a literacy test and the possibility of annual quotas.[13] Presidents Cleveland and Taft vetoed literacy tests in 1897 and 1913. President Wilson did the same in 1915 and 1917, but the test was passed over Wilson's second veto.[14] <<​

That's from YOUR OWN LINK, Dumbass.

And, shitstain.....any Literacy Test is unconstitutional......any training requirement to exercise a Right is unConstitutional...... you moron.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

The law does hold the seller in a private transaction responsible if he sells a gun to someone he knows is a prohibited person or is otherwise planning to commit a crime with a gun.

/—-/ Nor should he be held responsible any more than you would be if you sold your car to a drunk driver.

 

[Pogo]

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

The same place where Literacy tests created by democrats to keep blacks from voting was declared unConstitutional..... you could try the 14th Amendment, section 1.

Where do you buy the moronity that impels you to just make shit up on a message board and think that nobody's ever going to fact-check you? Where do you get that shit? eBay?

>> African-American suffrage was the subject of much debate at the 1821 and 1846 state constitutional conventions, and the transcripts contain some astounding racist rhetoric. A recurring theme was an alleged criminal propensity among African-Americans as a reason to restrict the black vote. Delegate Samuel Young implored in 1821: "Look to your jails and penitentiaries. By whom are they filled? By the very race whom is now proposed to cloth with the power of deciding upon your political rights."

By 1872, New York was the only state to make property ownership a voting requirement exclusively for African-Americans. But the 15th Amendment to the Constitution forced New York to revisit its constitution.

Gov. John Hoffman convened a few dozen "eminent citizens" to figure out what to do. Hoffman's commission eliminated a few sections and added some words here and there. The result was a Jim Crow "bait and switch" that remains the law today. << --- Jim Crow Haunts NY Blacks​

Neither "Democrats" nor "Republicans" existed in 1821 but both did by 1872. So leave us check the party breakdown of the New York State Legislature at that time:

Party control Republican (98-26-4)​

Oopsie.

Moron...

John Hoffman....democrat Governor of New York..

John T. Hoffman - Wikipedia

Governors don't draft legislation, moron. Legislatures do.
And --- they did.

They sign it shithead.......and they don't get elected to the office without a lot of democrats voting for them.....shithead.

And the Governor who signed it when the 1874 modification was made, was also a Republican.

Either way --- you lose.

This is the inevitable result of trying to play this childish game. But you'll just go on doing it.
Won't you.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

Duke University and University of Chicago, you dumb ass.....


Yes.....criminals use friends and family to buy their guns for them, since those friends and family can pass any background check.....

Then, prosecutors who catch the friends and family do not prosecute, because the grandmothers, baby mommas and sisters of the criminals tell them they were threatened if they refused to buy the gun........

Study Finds That Chicago Criminals Get Guns From Friends, Family

A survey conducted by researchers from Duke University and the University of Chicago found that Chicago criminals obtained their firearms almost exclusively from friends and family.

The survey, funded by the Joyce Foundation and set to be published in the October edition of Preventive Medicine, consisted of interviews with 99 inmates at Chicago’s Cook County Jail who had illegally possessed a gun within six months of their incarceration. It found that most criminals only acquired guns from people they knew and trusted.

"It is rare for offenders to buy from licensed dealers, and also rare for them to steal their guns," the study says. "Rather, the predominant sources of guns to offenders are family, acquaintances, fellow gang members—which is to say, members of their social network."

The study found that due to fears of encountering undercover police officers attempting sting operations, a large majority of the criminals surveyed would only make illegal gun purchases from people they knew.

"In discussing the underground gun market in their neighborhoods, most respondents emphasized the importance of connections—prior relationships that could create sufficient trust to reassure the seller that the transaction would not create an unacceptable legal risk," the survey says. "A majority of the primary guns (40 of the 48 for which we have detailed information on the source) were obtained from family, fellow gang members, or other social connections; the fraction is still higher for secondary guns."

"Only 2 of the 70 primary guns (3%) and no secondary guns were reported as purchased directly from a gun store."

Sure, I've seen that same cut an paste crap lots of times, but it means nothing. I'm sure most of those friends and family members wouldn't even consider selling the crooks a gun if they were personally responsible to see that a background check was performed. Believe it or not, having a friend or family member that is a crook doesn't make you a crook as well. An individual can sell a gun to anybody. You don't even have to know their name.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Voting rights and the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are subject to a different standard of judicial review than Second Amendment rights.

For example, in 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that requiring firearm registration applicants to view a one-hour gun safety training video is Constitutional, as are fees for fingerprinting and registrating firearms (see Heller II).

The problem is that far too many conservatives are ignorant of current Second Amendment case law – and ignorant of the law in general.

 

[2aguy]

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.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

Duke University and University of Chicago, you dumb ass.....


Yes.....criminals use friends and family to buy their guns for them, since those friends and family can pass any background check.....

Then, prosecutors who catch the friends and family do not prosecute, because the grandmothers, baby mommas and sisters of the criminals tell them they were threatened if they refused to buy the gun........

Study Finds That Chicago Criminals Get Guns From Friends, Family

A survey conducted by researchers from Duke University and the University of Chicago found that Chicago criminals obtained their firearms almost exclusively from friends and family.

The survey, funded by the Joyce Foundation and set to be published in the October edition of Preventive Medicine, consisted of interviews with 99 inmates at Chicago’s Cook County Jail who had illegally possessed a gun within six months of their incarceration. It found that most criminals only acquired guns from people they knew and trusted.

"It is rare for offenders to buy from licensed dealers, and also rare for them to steal their guns," the study says. "Rather, the predominant sources of guns to offenders are family, acquaintances, fellow gang members—which is to say, members of their social network."

The study found that due to fears of encountering undercover police officers attempting sting operations, a large majority of the criminals surveyed would only make illegal gun purchases from people they knew.

"In discussing the underground gun market in their neighborhoods, most respondents emphasized the importance of connections—prior relationships that could create sufficient trust to reassure the seller that the transaction would not create an unacceptable legal risk," the survey says. "A majority of the primary guns (40 of the 48 for which we have detailed information on the source) were obtained from family, fellow gang members, or other social connections; the fraction is still higher for secondary guns."

"Only 2 of the 70 primary guns (3%) and no secondary guns were reported as purchased directly from a gun store."

Sure, I've seen that same cut an paste crap lots of times, but it means nothing. I'm sure most of those friends and family members wouldn't even consider selling the crooks a gun if they were personally responsible to see that a background check was performed. Believe it or not, having a friend or family member that is a crook doesn't make you a crook as well. An individual can sell a gun to anybody. You don't even have to know their name.

You see the evidence from the University of Chicago and Duke University....and you still pretend not to understand the truth......

You are an idiot...

 

[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?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Voting rights and the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are subject to a different standard of judicial review than Second Amendment rights.

For example, in 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that requiring firearm registration applicants to view a one-hour gun safety training video is Constitutional, as are fees for fingerprinting and registrating firearms (see Heller II).

The problem is that far too many conservatives are ignorant of current Second Amendment case law – and ignorant of the law in general.

I am wise enough to know that the Bench can seek to legislate, not interpret.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Sounds good, so let's do the same with cars.

 

[2aguy]

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?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Voting rights and the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are subject to a different standard of judicial review than Second Amendment rights.

For example, in 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that requiring firearm registration applicants to view a one-hour gun safety training video is Constitutional, as are fees for fingerprinting and registrating firearms (see Heller II).

The problem is that far too many conservatives are ignorant of current Second Amendment case law – and ignorant of the law in general.

No, they aren't.......left wing judges refuse to give the 2nd Amendment the same scrutiny as the other Rights in the Bill of Rights, that is them, not the 2nd Amendment. They are violating their oath of office.

The D.C. circuit was wrong. Any fee for the exercise of a Right, including the 2nd Amendment is unConstitutional........

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

Sounds good, so let's do the same with cars.

Knives too

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Unplug the headlamp on one side of your car and drive around at night, that gives LE Probable Cause to stop your car and make sure it is safe. Also, the Coast Guard can arbitrarily board and examine if you vessel has proper safety equipment.

A violation that harms others, like a headlight, is not a safety inspection.
I have never had police or Coast Guard conduct a safety inspection, nor would I see any legal authorization, even though travel is not a right and could endanger others.
Unlike travel, weapons are from the right of defense, and there really can be no equivocation on that.

If you drove a truck for a living, you'd know they pull drivers over for safety inspections all the time. But of course truck drivers don't have constitutional rights either.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

Duke University and University of Chicago, you dumb ass.....


Yes.....criminals use friends and family to buy their guns for them, since those friends and family can pass any background check.....

Then, prosecutors who catch the friends and family do not prosecute, because the grandmothers, baby mommas and sisters of the criminals tell them they were threatened if they refused to buy the gun........

Study Finds That Chicago Criminals Get Guns From Friends, Family

A survey conducted by researchers from Duke University and the University of Chicago found that Chicago criminals obtained their firearms almost exclusively from friends and family.

The survey, funded by the Joyce Foundation and set to be published in the October edition of Preventive Medicine, consisted of interviews with 99 inmates at Chicago’s Cook County Jail who had illegally possessed a gun within six months of their incarceration. It found that most criminals only acquired guns from people they knew and trusted.

"It is rare for offenders to buy from licensed dealers, and also rare for them to steal their guns," the study says. "Rather, the predominant sources of guns to offenders are family, acquaintances, fellow gang members—which is to say, members of their social network."

The study found that due to fears of encountering undercover police officers attempting sting operations, a large majority of the criminals surveyed would only make illegal gun purchases from people they knew.

"In discussing the underground gun market in their neighborhoods, most respondents emphasized the importance of connections—prior relationships that could create sufficient trust to reassure the seller that the transaction would not create an unacceptable legal risk," the survey says. "A majority of the primary guns (40 of the 48 for which we have detailed information on the source) were obtained from family, fellow gang members, or other social connections; the fraction is still higher for secondary guns."

"Only 2 of the 70 primary guns (3%) and no secondary guns were reported as purchased directly from a gun store."

Sure, I've seen that same cut an paste crap lots of times, but it means nothing. I'm sure most of those friends and family members wouldn't even consider selling the crooks a gun if they were personally responsible to see that a background check was performed. Believe it or not, having a friend or family member that is a crook doesn't make you a crook as well. An individual can sell a gun to anybody. You don't even have to know their name.

You see the evidence from the University of Chicago and Duke University....and you still pretend not to understand the truth......

You are an idiot...

Your evaluation of that evidence assumes that everyone a crook knows or is kin to will ignore every gun law, even if those laws placed a liability on them. That just isn't a rational belief. It didn't even address the purchase of guns from total strangers who have no obligation to even know their name.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Any test for the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional...as is any fee for the exercise of a Right.....

So slander and libel laws are unConstitutional?

I thought you claimed to be a "scholar". Did you mean "wanker"?

No, dipshit..... you keep making things up about me......do you really need to mix booze with your meds? It isn't helping you.

Slander and Libel violate the Rights of others.....that is why there is a defined punishment for doing it......but you can say anything you want until you violate the Rights of others.....then you break the law.

You asshats want to punish people who do not use their guns for crime.....for simply owning and carrying guns.

This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘punish’ lawful gunowners.

Firearm regulatory measures such as background checks, training requirements, and registration fees are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Second Amendment – in no manner ‘violating’ gunowners’ rights.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Tenure?

You probably mean tenor.

Liberals are the first ones to stand up for individual liberties that, sometimes, police officers violate.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

You are under no obligation to know either way. That is what the background check is for.

 

[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

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.

No, it isn't.

 

[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

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

Your free speech is unlikely to be left where a child can get it and accidentally kill or injure someone.

 

[Crepitus]

Having the right to go to the church of your choice without a license is the same as having the right to own a gun with a 30 round ammo drum? Creptitus, I think that KGB's train left the station without his baggage.

30 round magazines are not drums, dumbass. Aren't you supposed to be a man? Something's wrong with you, you dolt.

Oh, Crepitus is your buddy?

Lemme guess, you 2 snuggle up in a sleeping bag and read Das Kapital with a flashlight at night, amirite?

Snug as 2 fags in a bag and queer for each other.

More homoerotic fantasies from the right.

Why don't you guys just come out of the closet already?

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

Ummmmm yeah actually we do.

Federal or state jurisdiction is not over "cars". It's over use of the roads.

You can own all the cars you want without any gummint intervention at all, if you never use them on the roads.

There is ZERO federal jurisdiction over cars or roads.

IS there now.

Ever see an "interstate highway"?

How do you think it got built?

Who maintains interstate highways? Hmm?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Having the right to go to the church of your choice without a license is the same as having the right to own a gun with a 30 round ammo drum? Creptitus, I think that KGB's train left the station without his baggage.

30 round magazines are not drums, dumbass. Aren't you supposed to be a man? Something's wrong with you, you dolt.

Oh, Crepitus is your buddy?

Lemme guess, you 2 snuggle up in a sleeping bag and read Das Kapital with a flashlight at night, amirite?

Snug as 2 fags in a bag and queer for each other.

More homoerotic fantasies from the right.

Why don't you guys just come out of the closet already?

Why don't you stop thinking Karl Marx was cool?

Fucker never worked a day in his life. He was a sponge shit-talker that never got anything good done.
I ain't got nothin' for him or his followers. Of which you are one, soyboy.