Gun Control question for liberals?

[rightwinger]

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?

Mexicans

 

[Marion Morrison]

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?

Mexicans

The correct answer is each county is responsible for their section of interstate that runs through it.

 

[Flash]

[Q


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

You are confused about this, aren't you Moon Bat?

Almost all of the recent mass shooters passed a background check and it didn't stop them from committing a crime.

Background checks are absolutely useless. Passing a stupid background check is absolutely no guarantee that a person won't commit a crime in the future.

Background checks are just like all stupid Liberal policies. They make the idiot Liberals feel good but they are useless.

Somebody looking to use a firearm for criminal purposes will always be able to get one regardless of the oppressive laws against law abiding citizens.

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future, dumb ass, but, if you determine they have committed crimes in the past, it is positive that they are more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

All these stupid gun laws do is oppress the Constitutional liberties of people that would never use the firearms for illegal purposes. They does nothing to stop the bad guys. Just look at the daily shootings in Chicago as an example. The strictest gun control laws in the country and there are more gun violence there than anyplace else. The assholes there don't give a shit about background checks.

Background checks never do anything to stop crime. They are a waste of time. Another dumb Libtard idea that fails.

The most oppressive thing about background checks is that it is the filthy government giving you permission to enjoy an individual right that is guaranteed under the Constitution. If you have to get permission from the government for a right in the Bill of Rights then the Bill of Right isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

 

[Crepitus]

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

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.

What do you mean opinion and not fact? How old are you? The Democrat party is renown for saying they only want X to be happy, and once they have it, they proceed to the next level.

They have been doing this since I started following politics, and long before. Democrats never do anything unless there's an ulterior motive behind it that benefits them.

You (and other leftists) say you don't want to see guns confiscated. That may be true, but that's not how the party you support feels. If not for our Constitution and conservative judges to enforce it, Democrats would have disarmed society long ago.

I mean it's your opinion, not a fact.

Are you not aware of the difference between the two?

 

[Crepitus]

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

That is such a moronic argument.

By that logic we might as well repeal all laws from jaywalking on up.

No stop repeating that stupidity.

 

[sartre play]

I call BS, All hunters, skeet & target shooters, collectors have had gun through out time, gun ownership was never decided by what political party you belonged to. Real gun people never felt the need to take guns to political rally's or go to the flea mt while packing. there is a new breed of gun people who have no life long experience of the proper use of guns. it only became crazy when it became political.

 

[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?

Trump supporter bigot alert!

Marion just does that because he thinks it helps hide his own homosexual tendencies. He's very insecure.

 

[Pogo]

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

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.

What do you mean opinion and not fact? How old are you? The Democrat party is renown for saying they only want X to be happy, and once they have it, they proceed to the next level.

They have been doing this since I started following politics, and long before. Democrats never do anything unless there's an ulterior motive behind it that benefits them.

You (and other leftists) say you don't want to see guns confiscated. That may be true, but that's not how the party you support feels. If not for our Constitution and conservative judges to enforce it, Democrats would have disarmed society long ago.

Can't help noticing you have this need to continually change the subject.

In the OP's original it was "Liberals".
Now you've changed that to "leftists" and when that didn't work, "Democrats". You went from a philosophy of government, to a side of the political spectrum, to a political party.

Were we not supposed to notice being on three different trains going different directions here or what?

Are you just afraid of tackling the topic head-on? Is that it?

 

[progressive hunter]

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

That is such a moronic argument.

By that logic we might as well repeal all laws from jaywalking on up.

No stop repeating that stupidity.

those are not protected rights,,,

you are failing to use your critical thinking skills again,,,,

 

[Marion Morrison]

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

That is such a moronic argument.

By that logic we might as well repeal all laws from jaywalking on up.

No stop repeating that stupidity.

those are not protected rights,,,

you are failing to use your critical thinking skills again,,,,

He ever did?
Crepitus is here to twat up the thread and espouse Commie views, same goes for Pogo, who keeps hammering on that the term "liberal" was used in the OP to mean the leftists. He has a point there, but not a huge one.
Pogo probably was an intelligent liberal until 11/9/2016, then the TDS started slowly creeping..

 

[Crepitus]

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

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....

I don't suppose you saw how I clubbed your commie comrade about the head with reality and he yelped and ran off to lick his wounds.
That's OK, let's see you make the same mistake and I'm gonna hammer you like a 22oz Estwing vs. a picture nail, bitch.

You referring to me Maid Marion?

Just cause you can't see me from your closet doesn't mean I'm not here.

 

[Flash]

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

That is such a moronic argument.

By that logic we might as well repeal all laws from jaywalking on up.

No stop repeating that stupidity.

How many of the recent mass shooters passed the background check to purchase the firearms used in the killings? Every damn one of them you fucking moron.

The dozens of shootings every day in Chicago are done by thugs that couldn't pass a background check.

 

[Blues Man]

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

That is such a moronic argument.

By that logic we might as well repeal all laws from jaywalking on up.

No stop repeating that stupidity.

The thin is we literally have thousands state and federal of gun laws on the books but since we do not enforce them they are not effective.

So tell me how is any new law going to work better if we just throw it on the pile of laws we don't enforce now?

Every person who is arrested for illegally possessing any firearm is committing not only a state crime but also a federal crime and the federal crime will get you 5 years in prison the state time may vary but why don't we start by actually prosecuting people who illegally obtain, possess and use firearms as the law already allows before we throw more laws on the trash heap?

 

[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.

Answer the question

If I know my brother isn't a felon why do I have to pay for a background check?

Because under current law, there is no legal reason why any individual seller should know or even care if the gun purchaser can legally own a gun. Hell. there is no legal reason why the seller should even know the purchaser's name, much less whether he can legally own a gun.

 

[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?

"The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns."


ten·ure

noun: tenure

1.
the conditions under which land or buildings are held or occupied.
synonyms: tenancy, occupancy, holding, occupation, residence; More
possession, title, ownership, proprietorship
"they have a right to a fair rent and security of tenure"
2.
the holding of an office.
"his tenure of the premiership would be threatened"
synonyms: incumbency, term of office, term, period of/in office, time, time in office
"his tenure as Secretary of State for Industry"
a period for which an office is held.
plural noun: tenures
3.
guaranteed permanent employment, especially as a teacher or professor, after a probationary period.

verb
verb: tenure; 3rd person present: tenures; past tense: tenured; past participle: tenured; gerund or present participle: tenuring

1.
give (someone) a permanent post, especially as a teacher or professor.
"I had recently been tenured and then promoted to full professor"


When stupid people (conservatives) try to sound smart by misusing words to make a point it only stresses just how stupid the stupid person (conservative) is.

This is why you think trump is smart. He misuses words all the time and you are too stupid to realize it.

---------------

"The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns."

And yet every liberal that I know owns at least 1 gun. Some of them have a few hunting rifles. I don't know ANY liberals who subscribe to your idiotic statement. The position (not tenure you conservative moron) of most liberals is that private ownership of pistols and rifles by trained and licensed citizens is fine.



" Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns."

again, that is a lie. Liberals MOSTLY have no problem with private ownership of guns (pistols, handguns, rifles) but balk at the idea of people who want to kill liberals on a massive scale (conservatives) owning weapons of mass destruction.

The thought of you in your moms basement with machine guns writing the names of every liberal you know on all those bullets is rather disturbing.

"Liberals are also the first to attack the police."

when they shoot people with 24 bullets simply for holding a cell phone....

but not for doing their job.



" How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals? "


I am ok with the police, military and private citizens having guns.

I want ALL people with guns to be properly trained in the care and handling of guns.

Thanks for the spell check. I take it you are smart enough to realize that some of these web spell check engines are too smart for themselves and will change correct spellings? As for Conservatives sitting in basements building “kill liberals” list, that would be pretty violent to say the least. Tell us, how frequent is violent acts occurring against liberals compared to violence against conservatives? You want to talk gun violence? Look at the manifestos of mass shooters in recent years. The majority of them have not been pro conservative.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Answer the question

If I know my brother isn't a felon why do I have to pay for a background check?

Because under current law, there is no legal reason why any individual seller should know or even care if the gun purchaser can legally own a gun. Hell. there is no legal reason why the seller should even know the purchaser's name, much less whether he can legally own a gun.

If I know my brother isn't a felon why do I have to pay for a background check on him?

I'm not asking about selling to people I don't know.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future,

So, you must ban and confiscate to prevent anyone from deciding to become a criminal?

.

Again, why do you think I want to ban and confiscate guns? Just because gun nuts make that claim doesn't mean it's true, dumb ass. Gun nuts lie a lot.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future,

So, you must ban and confiscate to prevent anyone from deciding to become a criminal?

.

Again, why do you think I want to ban and confiscate guns? Just because gun nuts make that claim doesn't mean it's true, dumb ass. Gun nuts lie a lot.

Because it is the next logical step. When all the other measures DO NO WORK like we have been saying, the demand will be complete ban and confiscation.

Until you are willing to accept that there will be shootings, no matter what you do, you will continue to be disappointed and demand more until there is nothing left to do but ban and confiscate.

You may not recognize the logical progression. We do because we have seen it. Repeatedly.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

[Q


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

You are confused about this, aren't you Moon Bat?

Almost all of the recent mass shooters passed a background check and it didn't stop them from committing a crime.

Background checks are absolutely useless. Passing a stupid background check is absolutely no guarantee that a person won't commit a crime in the future.

Background checks are just like all stupid Liberal policies. They make the idiot Liberals feel good but they are useless.

Somebody looking to use a firearm for criminal purposes will always be able to get one regardless of the oppressive laws against law abiding citizens.

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future, dumb ass, but, if you determine they have committed crimes in the past, it is positive that they are more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

All these stupid gun laws do is oppress the Constitutional liberties of people that would never use the firearms for illegal purposes. They does nothing to stop the bad guys. Just look at the daily shootings in Chicago as an example. The strictest gun control laws in the country and there are more gun violence there than anyplace else. The assholes there don't give a shit about background checks.

Background checks never do anything to stop crime. They are a waste of time. Another dumb Libtard idea that fails.

The most oppressive thing about background checks is that it is the filthy government giving you permission to enjoy an individual right that is guaranteed under the Constitution. If you have to get permission from the government for a right in the Bill of Rights then the Bill of Right isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

No law can guarantee to stop crime, so using your logic, all laws are a waste of time. How long have you been an Anarchist?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

[Q


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

You are confused about this, aren't you Moon Bat?

Almost all of the recent mass shooters passed a background check and it didn't stop them from committing a crime.

Background checks are absolutely useless. Passing a stupid background check is absolutely no guarantee that a person won't commit a crime in the future.

Background checks are just like all stupid Liberal policies. They make the idiot Liberals feel good but they are useless.

Somebody looking to use a firearm for criminal purposes will always be able to get one regardless of the oppressive laws against law abiding citizens.

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future, dumb ass, but, if you determine they have committed crimes in the past, it is positive that they are more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

What you stupid Moon Bats fail to understand is that laws do not keep the crooks from doing bad things.

All these stupid gun laws do is oppress the Constitutional liberties of people that would never use the firearms for illegal purposes. They does nothing to stop the bad guys. Just look at the daily shootings in Chicago as an example. The strictest gun control laws in the country and there are more gun violence there than anyplace else. The assholes there don't give a shit about background checks.

Background checks never do anything to stop crime. They are a waste of time. Another dumb Libtard idea that fails.

The most oppressive thing about background checks is that it is the filthy government giving you permission to enjoy an individual right that is guaranteed under the Constitution. If you have to get permission from the government for a right in the Bill of Rights then the Bill of Right isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

No law can guarantee to stop crime, so using your logic, all laws are a waste of time. How long have you been an Anarchist?

You have a child-like understanding of the purpose for laws and justice.

Laws do not prevent crime. They are only mechanisms to administer justice.

.