Gun Control question for liberals?

[Rigby5]

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

You do realize there were 17 mass shooting during the Clinton assault weapon ban?

so?

The "so" is that people intent on murder can never possibly be stopped by any additional gun control laws because they are lesser penalties than what they intend.
The reality is that then all gun control laws are instead intended to intimidate honest people, who actually are the ones who should be armed, in order to reduce violence.
If we want to reduce violence, all we have to do is end the illegal War on Drugs, which is responsible for over 70% of all the murders in the US.
The problem really is corrupt government, once again.
Attempting to instead demonize the general public, in a democratic republic, amounts to treason.

 

[Rigby5]

brothers and sisters: the person who the NRA donated the most to in history was Trump. and he banned bump stocks. and the nra were silent on that. they are doing a horrible job. Hogg owns the future!

No one supports or cares about bump stocks.
Hogg is a liar who is acting against the basis of a democratic republic, and has no future.

 

[Rigby5]

most of the gun extremists tend to be older white men who dont know how to use social media,,,and Parkland's Kyle

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?

we may not agree on everything but we need to work together as american human beings to prevent preventable gun violence!

The preventable gun violence are the over 1 million successful crimes of violence every single year, and the several million more that are prevented by the defensive use of firearms.
Anyone who would then interfere with the populations ability to resist and prevent crime by trying to disarm the general population, is working to increase crime.
And when it comes down to it, the greatest source of crime in any society is corrupt government.
Any government that would reduce arms of the general population is totally corrupt and needs to be destroyed.

 

[Flash]

We shouldn't have any gun laws because the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This^ is what will lead to confiscation. The utter refusal to discuss reasonable limits and controls will eventually force an all or nothing situation and you gun-nuts will lose.

You really should reconsider your position, that time is coming closer every day.

You stupid Libtards don't know the meaning of the word "reasonable". You think the oppressive laws in states like California, New York, Mass etc are "reasonable".

I don't want to ever trust an uneducated low information confused Moon Bat like you to determine the reasonableness of my Constitutional rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You stupid Libtards don't know the meaning of the word "reasonable". You think the oppressive laws in states like California, New York, Mass etc are "reasonable".

Indeed - if the Democrats had their way, California's gun laws - designed to make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their right to keel and bear arms, and little else - would be in place at the federal level.

 

[Flash]

We shouldn't have any gun laws because the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This^ is what will lead to confiscation. The utter refusal to discuss reasonable limits and controls will eventually force an all or nothing situation and you gun-nuts will lose.

You really should reconsider your position, that time is coming closer every day.

We have 20,000 gun laws at the local, state and federal level...yet you say we still don't have enough.

It is already against the law to use a gun to commit rape, robbery and murder. It is against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun.

The two statements above are all we need to stop criminals with guns.

The problem that you don't care about is democrat judges, politicians and prosecutors letting repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over until they actually commit murder.....then they give them a few years and let them out again......

That is the issue, and you don't care, because you want guns banned....and criminals murdering people is a way to expedite that process.

The agenda of the stupid Liberals is not to stop crime. Crime is rampant in the big city shitholes that they control and they haven't done a damn thing of substance about it.

The agenda is not to take guns away from the mostly minority thugs that commit gun crimes. We see that in places like Chicago everyday where the great majority of the gun crimes in this country takes place.

They want to take guns away from the White rural guy that has never committed a crime in his life. They think the White guy with an AR is a threat to their agenda of making the US a Socialist shithole. That is what they are afraid of.

 

[Flash]

most of the gun extremists tend to be older white men who dont know how to use social media,,,and Parkland's Kyle

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?

we may not agree on everything but we need to work together as american human beings to prevent preventable gun violence!

The preventable gun violence are the over 1 million successful crimes of violence every single year, and the several million more that are prevented by the defensive use of firearms.
Anyone who would then interfere with the populations ability to resist and prevent crime by trying to disarm the general population, is working to increase crime.
And when it comes down to it, the greatest source of crime in any society is corrupt government.
Any government that would reduce arms of the general population is totally corrupt and needs to be destroyed.

Winner!

Corrupt and oppressive government hate an armed populace.

That is why the Brits marched on the colonist at Concord and Lexington. To take away the ability of Americans to resist the Crown. Not any different than the jackasses in political power nowadays.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

most of the gun extremists tend to be older white men who dont know how to use social media,,,and Parkland's Kyle

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?

we may not agree on everything but we need to work together as american human beings to prevent preventable gun violence!

Nope my rights are not up on the table for discussion or compromise . Work with the laws already on the books.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

And you were shown.....you don't care what the actual answer is, you just know you need universal background checks so that when they don't work, you can then demand universal gun registration, which is what you actually want.

I was shown what might be a child's justification for anarchy. "Laws don't stop crime, so laws are a waste" but that's all.

 

[Flopper]

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

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

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.

I don't think gun registration makes any sense in a nation with more guns than there are people. Countries that were success with gun registration were countries where very few people own guns. I think the emphasis should be on background checks.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

He appointed anti-gun judges to the very courts that are ignoring Heller and the rest of the 2nd Amendment rulings from the Supreme Court...he did this to protect obamacare, he didn't want to lose any democrats to anti-gun votes in congress....and he knows that if they pass anti-gun laws at the state and local level, the judges he appointed can declare them constituional...

So no confiscations by Obama -------Right?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

It doesn't matter....the felon who buys the gun knows that they can't buy that gun, and when they are caught with that gun, they can already be arrested and jailed....... Private sales are not what you care about...you want universal background checks so that when they fail.....you can then demand gun registration which is what you really want. You know that registration came first, in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Canada, Germany, and various states here in the U.S......and then came banning and confiscation......

That is the goal.

An idiot who thinks he can read minds. You're really an odd piece of crap, aren't you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

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.

I don't think gun registration makes any sense in a nation with more guns than there are people. Countries that were success with gun registration were countries where very few people own guns. I think the emphasis should be on background checks.

That's great you should be happy since we already have those.

 

[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.

Then why do the democrats keep letting them out of jail and prison over and over again? And why do democrat politicians keep reducing the lengths of sentences for gun crimes, repeat gun crimes for actual criminals who have criminal records and repeat gun arrests?

If everyone were armed, criminals could have their rights restored after they served their time, because natural selection/street justice would take care of them if they didn't or refused to learn their lesson.

.

Yes, we are all aware of your lawless anarchist dreams where mob rule is your answer to everything.

 

[Coyote]

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?

It is impossible to give a serious answer to such a train wreck of OP assumptions.

As a liberal:

I have no problems with private citizens owning guns.

I have a deep respect for our police and support them, but I am not blind to the fact there needs to be accountability.

On the other hand, I have seen systemic dismantling of common sense gun control measures over the last several decades with the proclamation of “more guns more guns!”

Has there been a decrease in gun violence and mass shootings?

Maybe you need to examine your assumptions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html

 

[Crepitus]

You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car.

Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.

As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.

 

[Crepitus]

Why?
You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Universal background checks won't do this.

And why not?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I was shown what might be a child's justification for anarchy. "Laws don't stop crime, so laws are a waste" but that's all.

Again, you fail to understand the purpose of law and justice.

Laws are passed to administer justice, not prevent crime, yet here you are, trying to administer justice BEFORE the fact.

Do you know what we call that?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, we are all aware of your lawless anarchist dreams where mob rule is your answer to everything.

So, we're calling self-defense "mob rule" now?

.

 

[Crepitus]

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

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.

I don't think gun registration makes any sense in a nation with more guns than there are people. Countries that were success with gun registration were countries where very few people own guns. I think the emphasis should be on background checks.

With registration you could background check the gun.