Gun Control question for liberals?

[Rigby5]

Gun registration precludes confiscation, just like 1938 Germany. Did I read you wrong? You're a Nazi instead of a Commie?

You're afraid it will lead to confiscation, there is no reason why it would. You are stating an opinion, not a fact.

Gun registration has already lead to confiscation in the US.
Not only in states like NY and CA, where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated, but they were used to get search warrants and confiscate if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse.

If confiscation were not the reason for registration, they why do it?
There is absolutely nothing at all gained by any weapons registration if not for confiscation.

I don't suppose that any of them were confiscated because a judge had issued a legal restraining order due to a threat the owner made on his girlfriend's life....

According to the Bill of Rights, a judge can not legally just issue an order for confiscation based on the claim of threats by one person. The owner of the guns must be given the opportunity first to face their accusers in court.
When a judge issues a restraining order without hearing both sides and cross examination, that is NOT legal.
A judge who does that is criminal.
The fact is it common, does not at all change the fact it is illegal.

So, your basis of this statement is what? "... where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated,if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse." Your post definitely implies that only girls falsely claiming abuse was the only reason any guns were confiscated. On the other hand, if they were confiscated illegally, there is a legal remedy for that in the constitution. In short, you offer nothing to indicate that maybe some of these confiscated guns were legally confiscated, and maybe some lives were saved.

If all you want to do is maybe save some lives, then your solution obviously is that you should just preemptively imprison everyone.
That is bound to give you want you want, that "maybe some lives were saved".

By the way, the changes in laws that made legal guns suddenly illegal has nothing to do with a domestic abuse claim. That refers to legal guns like the SKS that California just decided to make illegal because they were too inexpensive.

A person making a claim of violence from another is not sufficient according to the Constitution, to deprive someone of something.
The 5th Amendment says:
{... No person shall be deprived of ... property without due process of law; ...}
And due process means being able to face your accusers in court, where you can cross examine.
In order to take something from someone, it has to have been proven in court that someone did something wrong. A judge can not legally act to take something from someone based just on one person's allegations.

{...
Due Process of Law
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of theproceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, aconstitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life,liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall
"be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.
...}
due process of law

 

[Vandalshandle]

You're afraid it will lead to confiscation, there is no reason why it would. You are stating an opinion, not a fact.

Gun registration has already lead to confiscation in the US.
Not only in states like NY and CA, where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated, but they were used to get search warrants and confiscate if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse.

If confiscation were not the reason for registration, they why do it?
There is absolutely nothing at all gained by any weapons registration if not for confiscation.

I don't suppose that any of them were confiscated because a judge had issued a legal restraining order due to a threat the owner made on his girlfriend's life....

According to the Bill of Rights, a judge can not legally just issue an order for confiscation based on the claim of threats by one person. The owner of the guns must be given the opportunity first to face their accusers in court.
When a judge issues a restraining order without hearing both sides and cross examination, that is NOT legal.
A judge who does that is criminal.
The fact is it common, does not at all change the fact it is illegal.

So, your basis of this statement is what? "... where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated,if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse." Your post definitely implies that only girls falsely claiming abuse was the only reason any guns were confiscated. On the other hand, if they were confiscated illegally, there is a legal remedy for that in the constitution. In short, you offer nothing to indicate that maybe some of these confiscated guns were legally confiscated, and maybe some lives were saved.

If all you want to do is maybe save some lives, then your solution obviously is that you should just preemptively imprison everyone.
That is bound to give you want you want, that "maybe some lives were saved".

By the way, the changes in laws that made legal guns suddenly illegal has nothing to do with a domestic abuse claim. That refers to legal guns like the SKS that California just decided to make illegal because they were too inexpensive.

A person making a claim of violence from another is not sufficient according to the Constitution, to deprive someone of something.
The 5th Amendment says:
{... No person shall be deprived of ... property without due process of law; ...}
And due process means being able to face your accusers in court, where you can cross examine.
In order to take something from someone, it has to have been proven in court that someone did something wrong. A judge can not legally act to take something from someone based just on one person's allegations.

{...
Due Process of Law
A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of theproceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, aconstitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life,liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall
"be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868,declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.
...}
due process of law

Wow! Did you used to operate the tilt-a-wheel at the fair? I have not seen this much spinning since 1959! All I asked for was something that would explain why nobody but girlfriends, falsely accusing boyfriends of abuse, cause guns to be confiscated. I am as educated in the constitution as anyone else, but that had nothing to do with my question. The constitution does not give convicted criminals rights to have guns. Nor does it give one the right to store hand grenades. I take it that you pulled the business about the vindictive girlfriends out of your ass.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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?

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

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.

What kind of liability policy? Is it for when you're working only, carrying for defense or both?

 

[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.

You want them. You prove it.

Criminals do not obey laws and do not use weapons that can lead back to them, a.k.a. illegal weapons, that normal people do not buy. It is pointless to talk about this because you people refuse to understand how it works.

Straw purchases lead back to the last FFL purchase.

You just want to add more steps in the process to stop LEGAL purchases. Quit lying.

.

You want me to prove your point? Yep, you're nuts,

Ummmmm

You are the proponent of more restrictions. Not me. You prove your bullshit will work. Maybe you need to learn how the burden of proof works.

The claim was made that universal checks would have no effect either way. I just asked for proof of that claim.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Because you vote for candidates that openly campaign to confiscate guns?

Really? And who have I voted for that wants to confiscate guns

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

Because you vote for candidates that openly campaign to confiscate guns?

If you notice, a lot of democrats refused to vote for Hillary.
They would have voted for Bernie Sanders however.
So what is the difference?
Bernie was not for an assault weapons ban like Hillary was.

It makes no difference which Democrat wins.
The guns will be confiscated.

Australia, the UK and Canada all prove this.

I thought the right said Obama would confiscate guns. Wrong again?

 

[BULLDOG]

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

black ground checks have done nothing to stop people from being killed with a gun. or have murders stopped happening?

And DWI laws haven't stopped people from getting drunk and causing wrecks. Did you have a point, dumb ass?

So, you are finally agreeing that laws do not prevent crime.

We're finally getting somewhere.

Praise Allah.

.

Laws do prevent crime. Only a childish fool would expect them to stop all crime,

So we create more laws that will not work? now that's childish.

You're obviously not smart enough to understand gun control laws. Read something besides NRA propaganda, and try again. I'm still waiting on proof that universal checks won't work at all.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Yes, the freedom to travel is a constitutional right. Your flailing for some sort of point, any point, has caused your head to overheat, and it's misfiring again.

Sure YOU have every right to walk any where you wish.

Do you have a point BooBoo?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Yes, the freedom to travel is a constitutional right. Your flailing for some sort of point, any point, has caused your head to overheat, and it's misfiring again.

Sure YOU have every right to walk any where you wish.

Do you have a point BooBoo?

if my comment has to be explain you shouldn't be on a discussion board.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

black ground checks have done nothing to stop people from being killed with a gun. or have murders stopped happening?

And DWI laws haven't stopped people from getting drunk and causing wrecks. Did you have a point, dumb ass?

So, you are finally agreeing that laws do not prevent crime.

We're finally getting somewhere.

Praise Allah.

.

Laws do prevent crime. Only a childish fool would expect them to stop all crime,

So we create more laws that will not work? now that's childish.

You're obviously not smart enough to understand gun control laws. Read something besides NRA propaganda, and try again. I'm still waiting on proof that universal checks won't work at all.

I would say it's you who doesn't understand what you support.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

Well, now, the difference is that with a car, the state must register it, and they will not do that for an owner who is legally prohibited from driving. I would be perfectly at ease if the same restriction applied to guns.

/——/ And you should be held responsible if the sober guy you sold the car to uses it to commit a crime like vehicular homicide. You should get 20 years to life.

 

[basquebromance]

the phrase "gun control" is too polarizing. a change in language would suit the anti-gun folks!

one thing i know: the anti-gun folks dont love america very much!

 

[basquebromance]

Moms Demand Action Against Guns are like 1950s housewives.

they literally breastfeed and knit in state houses

the anti-gun movement is pathetic!

they want to ban toy guns for kids, to give you an idea!

 

[basquebromance]

6 years ago, a madman gunned down 20 first-graders and 6 teachers. Afterwards, the Republican Congress proudly defeated the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, which would have expanded background checks on gun buyers

Heidi Heitkamp voted against Manchin/Toomey. she's a Democrat and mom. she was followed by Begich, Baucus, and Mark Pryor, all Dems. the vote failed by 6 votes. there were shouts of "shame on you" in the senate gallery, which rarely happens.

"this is a shameful day for america", obama bellowed

heitkamp said she voted no because she got so many calls from gun extremists arguing to preserve their 2nd amendment rights

 

[Defiant1]

6 years ago, a madman gunned down 20 first-graders and 6 teachers. Afterwards, the Republican Congress proudly defeated the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, which would have expanded background checks on gun buyers

Heidi Heitkamp voted against Manchin/Toomey. she's a Democrat and mom. she was followed by Begich, Baucus, and Mark Pryor, all Dems. the vote failed by 6 votes. there were shouts of "shame on you" in the senate gallery, which rarely happens.

"this is a shameful day for america", obama bellowed

heitkamp said she voted no because she got so many calls from gun extremists arguing to preserve their 2nd amendment rights

That madman didn't own any guns.

 

[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?

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

thats included in the ,,,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED , ,,part

critical thinking is not you strong point

 

[basquebromance]

Trump spokesbot Katrina Pierson once wore a necklace of bullets on CNN.

 

[basquebromance]

kids buy guns on social media these days. you cant regulate guns!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

I feel the same way about voting. Why should anyone over the age if 18 be able to walk into a voting booth without even knowing that we're a Republic, not a democracy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?

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.

Not only Uninformed, but not citizens and nonliving as well