Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We already have background checks for weapons purchased from a dealer at a shop or gun show. We have had killers who did pass the background check and still used those weapons for mass murders.

Your right it’s not a full proof system, some get through. Would you do away with the background check system we have or do you think it is doing some good?

Half and half on that.

Are they stopping people not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one at a dealer? Yes they are. Are they stopping people who are not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one elsewhere? No it doesn't.

Go to your pharmacist and ask for a bottle of Oxycontin, and he refuses to sell it to you without a prescription. Go to the street and it's ready available.

The question is, did you solve anything by forcing the addict to buy from the street instead of the drug store? No you didn't. Did you stop all law abiding citizens? Yes you did.

So let's say a evil or twisted person wants to commit a mass murder. Do you really think that the inability to buy a firearm at a dealer will make him say "Oh well, I guess I can't do it now!"

London is trying to institute a law that stops people from carrying knives outside of their home. Why? Because knife killings surpassed murders in New York City even with the available guns.

It's the old cliche. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take a nice middle-class suburb, and create a law that all households must have at least one firearm, you won't change the crime statics one bit. Create a law in lower income neighborhoods that nobody is allowed to own a firearm, the same thing. You won't change the crime statistics one bit.

Some might go find a dealer and get Oxy and others won’t... it’s the others that make a difference in this discussion. The ones that don’t. And with guns unlike drugs, they are literally made as a tool to harm others. So more reason to be more careful

But the gun-grabbers have acted in bad faith, don't you agree.

They are not trustworthy, right?

.

You are fighting fiction. Your fighting me right now and I’m a gun owner. So apparently you can’t debate unless your doing so against a made up enemy. Do what you gotta do dude

I was not lumping you in with the despicable.

It is a FACT that the issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right was challenged by the gun-grabbers all the way to the SCOTUS.

LET THAT SINK IN.

They would not even admit that it is an individual right. FACT.

And we're supposed to compromise with that filth?

They will need to give some things up to demonstrate good faith before we can ever trust them again.

Tell me where I am wrong on that.

.

 

[Slade3200]

I agree we need to work on the mental health and education of our kids. That’s primary. But I also don’t think it smart at all to have zero regulations on guns. responsible people should be buying guns, high risk people shouldn’t. Plain and simple

The Devil's in the details. We have seen laws being virtually broken by lawyers who find loopholes. The definition of 'high risk' will be malleable depending on who is in power. Heck, right now, Democrats think ALL Americans who own guns are 'high risk.'

No they don’t. Dishonest rhetoric like that is the problem. Keeps us from actually having a conversation and finding the devil

 

[Slade3200]

We the people decide through the representatives that we elect. Hopefully there are town halls and public forums to gather input from the people but that’s how it works in a republic.

That is not how a democratic republic works.
Individual rights, like self defense, are not up for anyone's vote.
That is as silly as claiming that slavery would be legal if the majority voted for it against a minority.

Slavery would be legal if it was voted into law. That’s not silly at all that actually how our government works.

That is not just silly, but insane.
That is NOT at all how law works.
This is a democratic republic, so then the ONLY source of any legal authority is the inherent rights of individuals.
So then when we create government, all government is then authorized to do, is defend those inherent rights.
And slavery would not be defending the rights of anyone.
So it could never be legal, even if 100% of the population voted for it.
The first thing a democratic republic has to do is write up the basic goals and limitations or government, including the basic Bill of Rights which government is NEVER supposed to be able to violate, under any circumstances.
You really do not seem to understand anything about law, democratic republics, rights, or delegated authority.

No the only source of legal authority is what’s written in the constitution and our laws. Moral laws are different

No, you still do not understand a democratic republic.
The constitution is NOT the source of legal authority.
We the people write the constitution, so we have to have some basis for what goes into it or not.
And the only thing that can go into a constitution is what is necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of individuals.
For example, individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property, so then you can make laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, etc.
It is not coming from an arbitrary article in a constitution, but the defense of a basic individual right.

Morality is a superset containing of what you can not legally do to others, but also what you should not do to yourself, and what you should do but are not legally bound to do.

What goes into the constitution is that which is written by the people and ratified

 

[Rigby5]

How much more honest can we be? The last two shooters were invisible to government, but left a trail of disturbing posts on social media. The only way to stop those people from getting guns is if we spied on their posts and determined they were a danger to the public.

How much more honest can you be you ask? Much more... you can start by not saying I said things like “spy” when I never said anything I’d the sort. That would be a good start.

Spying on Americans is not the only way, there are many ways to flag somebody at risk. It can be done by doctors, family, friends employers. And there would be a process to evaluate.

What would you propose Ray? Do nothing to prevent mental people from getting guns except for Arm those around them so they can defend themselves? What are your bright ideas?

Let's be honest...... 12 mass public shootings in 2018. total killed, 93. That is slightly more than are killed by lawn mowers each year. As people keep stating, we already have laws that can be used, the problem is that government keeps failing to use them....Parkland for example....over 30 visits by police....red flag after red flag....what kept them from preventing the attack (possibly)....the Obama "Promise Program" that encouraged the police and the school from pressing felony charges against the shooter....so they could keep their student arrest rate low.......

The Texas Church shooter...... the Air Force failed to put his records into NICS.......

A new red flag law wouldn't have prevented either one of those...because the government agencies meant to monitor these situations failed to do it.

Well I agree, we need to do better with the laws we have in the books because that would help. laws can help. Agreed?

Laws can not at all help if the laws totally violate the Constitution, and all federal gun laws most definitely do that and are totally illegal.

I disagree. Those laws are totally legal

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is only to ensure absolute jurisdiction restriction on the federal government.
And the 2nd amendment is totally denying any federal jurisdiction over weapons at all.
That is because states, municipalities, counties, and individuals need defensive firearms.
Clearly only states, counties, and cities can write any legal gun laws, because they have to vary and have local input.
You can't have the same gun laws in Alaska bear country, and NYC.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I agree we need to work on the mental health and education of our kids. That’s primary. But I also don’t think it smart at all to have zero regulations on guns. responsible people should be buying guns, high risk people shouldn’t. Plain and simple

The Devil's in the details. We have seen laws being virtually broken by lawyers who find loopholes. The definition of 'high risk' will be malleable depending on who is in power. Heck, right now, Democrats think ALL Americans who own guns are 'high risk.'

No they don’t. Dishonest rhetoric like that is the problem. Keeps us from actually having a conversation and finding the devil

The honesty can start with the gun-grabbers admitting that they tried to fuck us out of the individual right.

The honesty can start with the gun-grabbers giving up something FIRST before we consider any new restrictions or regulation.

.

 

[Andylusion]

First, because it doesn't work. My brother-in-law bought a gun on the side of the highway. Got in touch with a guy, met him at a highway rest stop, gave him the cash, he gave him the gun. They drove off.

Now please explain to me how your background checks or whatever law, is going to stop that? It isn't. It simply will not prevent a single gun from getting in the hands of a single criminal. It never works.

And here's the other side.

You say you don't feel threatened. Yeah of course not. No politician is going to say openly "This is the first step to taking away all your guns!".

But in the end, what the hell do you think government is going to do with that information?



After Katrina hit, armed national guard went house to house, confiscating guns from people registered to owning weapons. They went to middle class and upper class areas, taking guns from home owners trying to defend their property.

You know where they didn't go? To the poor crime infested areas, because no one there registered their illegal guns.

Here are the two reasons conservatives are against endless new laws:

1. New laws do not stop criminals, they only stop good law abiding citizens. There is zero evidence, as in none, that laws have stopped a criminal from getting a gun, anymore than prohibition stopped people from getting a drink, and drug laws stop teenagers from overdosing on Heroin.

2. New laws are a way of moving toward totalitarianism, and government abuse of the public. The Jews in Europe went willingly towards their own death, because the government promised them all those laws were for their protection. It's one half step towards government control each time, until you end in a dictatorship. There is no surprise that every dictator in history, has first started with gun control.

Background checks and gun control laws wouldn’t stop people like your brother from getting a gun. But it will stop the people who don’t have the phone number of the guy that will sell them a gun at a rest stop.

Except that all drug dealers already have to have guns to protect their illegal profits, so they won't mind at all selling some guns as well and increase their profits a little bit more.
Everyone knows where they can buy an illegal gun.
Several of them have even offered to sell me a machine gun.

No, everyone does not know where to get an illegal gun. Some do and others can find out if they try hard enough. But there are also others who don’t and who are prevented from getting dangerous weapons because we have it regulated

That is impossible stupid.
Clearly over 60% of the US population has experience with illegal drugs according to polls, so they then all know where to get drugs and guns. There is not one drug dealer who is not also armed, because they work in cash, so need defense. So all more gun laws will do is create another revenue source for drug deals. You can never reduce firearm access because no one will agree to that. The general population will do like they do with drugs or with Prohibition, and just deliberately disobey the corrupt government that has lost its credibility.
Any they do not have to get firearms to be dangerous.
A can of gasoline has killed hundreds of people already, is put in the right place.
What you suggest is naively foolish, diabolically deceptive.

That’s total horseshit. The fact that you think every drug deal also deals guns is laughable. I can’t take you seriously now. I tried

I wasn't following all the all the conversation with the other poster and you.....

But.... just my personal experience... When I was in high school in the 1990s, the drug dealer, was also the guy you talked to if you wanted a gun.

Now, there were other drug dealers I'm sure, and there were other gun dealers as well..... but.... yeah, the drug guy, was also the gun guy in high school.

 

[Rigby5]

That is not how a democratic republic works.
Individual rights, like self defense, are not up for anyone's vote.
That is as silly as claiming that slavery would be legal if the majority voted for it against a minority.

Slavery would be legal if it was voted into law. That’s not silly at all that actually how our government works.

That is not just silly, but insane.
That is NOT at all how law works.
This is a democratic republic, so then the ONLY source of any legal authority is the inherent rights of individuals.
So then when we create government, all government is then authorized to do, is defend those inherent rights.
And slavery would not be defending the rights of anyone.
So it could never be legal, even if 100% of the population voted for it.
The first thing a democratic republic has to do is write up the basic goals and limitations or government, including the basic Bill of Rights which government is NEVER supposed to be able to violate, under any circumstances.
You really do not seem to understand anything about law, democratic republics, rights, or delegated authority.

No the only source of legal authority is what’s written in the constitution and our laws. Moral laws are different

No, you still do not understand a democratic republic.
The constitution is NOT the source of legal authority.
We the people write the constitution, so we have to have some basis for what goes into it or not.
And the only thing that can go into a constitution is what is necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of individuals.
For example, individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property, so then you can make laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, etc.
It is not coming from an arbitrary article in a constitution, but the defense of a basic individual right.

Morality is a superset containing of what you can not legally do to others, but also what you should not do to yourself, and what you should do but are not legally bound to do.

What goes into the constitution is that which is written by the people and ratified

Wrong again.
What goes into a constitution is not legal unless it is based the legal premise of the form of government.
In a democratic republic, that means the only restriction you can infringe on the rights of anyone else is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of someone else.
If there are defects in a constitution, that violate rights without being justifies by the defense of other rights, then it is not legal, even in the constitution. Constitutions can not be just arbitrary from popular consent, but must not infringe upon the rights of any one single individual, unless absolutely necessary.
That is why we keep amending the Constitution in this country.
It can never be perfect, but we can try to remove the most glaring legal contradictions.
But clearly states were supposed to be the main sovereign unit.
Now the federal government is way out of hand, and is totally illegal.
We then have the largest incarcerated % in the world, due to illegal things like the federal War on Drugs.

 

[Rigby5]

Background checks and gun control laws wouldn’t stop people like your brother from getting a gun. But it will stop the people who don’t have the phone number of the guy that will sell them a gun at a rest stop.

Except that all drug dealers already have to have guns to protect their illegal profits, so they won't mind at all selling some guns as well and increase their profits a little bit more.
Everyone knows where they can buy an illegal gun.
Several of them have even offered to sell me a machine gun.

No, everyone does not know where to get an illegal gun. Some do and others can find out if they try hard enough. But there are also others who don’t and who are prevented from getting dangerous weapons because we have it regulated

That is impossible stupid.
Clearly over 60% of the US population has experience with illegal drugs according to polls, so they then all know where to get drugs and guns. There is not one drug dealer who is not also armed, because they work in cash, so need defense. So all more gun laws will do is create another revenue source for drug deals. You can never reduce firearm access because no one will agree to that. The general population will do like they do with drugs or with Prohibition, and just deliberately disobey the corrupt government that has lost its credibility.
Any they do not have to get firearms to be dangerous.
A can of gasoline has killed hundreds of people already, is put in the right place.
What you suggest is naively foolish, diabolically deceptive.

That’s total horseshit. The fact that you think every drug deal also deals guns is laughable. I can’t take you seriously now. I tried

I wasn't following all the all the conversation with the other poster and you.....

But.... just my personal experience... When I was in high school in the 1990s, the drug dealer, was also the guy you talked to if you wanted a gun.

Now, there were other drug dealers I'm sure, and there were other gun dealers as well..... but.... yeah, the drug guy, was also the gun guy in high school.

That should be obvious, not only because all drug dealers need guns, but that they are profit motivated and will find what you want if they can. And all illegal drug dealers can easily get guns as well as their drugs.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Slavery would be legal if it was voted into law. That’s not silly at all that actually how our government works.

That is not just silly, but insane.
That is NOT at all how law works.
This is a democratic republic, so then the ONLY source of any legal authority is the inherent rights of individuals.
So then when we create government, all government is then authorized to do, is defend those inherent rights.
And slavery would not be defending the rights of anyone.
So it could never be legal, even if 100% of the population voted for it.
The first thing a democratic republic has to do is write up the basic goals and limitations or government, including the basic Bill of Rights which government is NEVER supposed to be able to violate, under any circumstances.
You really do not seem to understand anything about law, democratic republics, rights, or delegated authority.

No the only source of legal authority is what’s written in the constitution and our laws. Moral laws are different

No, you still do not understand a democratic republic.
The constitution is NOT the source of legal authority.
We the people write the constitution, so we have to have some basis for what goes into it or not.
And the only thing that can go into a constitution is what is necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of individuals.
For example, individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property, so then you can make laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, etc.
It is not coming from an arbitrary article in a constitution, but the defense of a basic individual right.

Morality is a superset containing of what you can not legally do to others, but also what you should not do to yourself, and what you should do but are not legally bound to do.

What goes into the constitution is that which is written by the people and ratified

Wrong again.
What goes into a constitution is not legal unless it is based the legal premise of the form of government.
In a democratic republic, that means the only restriction you can infringe on the rights of anyone else is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of someone else.
If there are defects in a constitution, that violate rights without being justifies by the defense of other rights, then it is not legal, even in the constitution. Constitutions can not be just arbitrary from popular consent, but must not infringe upon the rights of any one single individual, unless absolutely necessary.
That is why we keep amending the Constitution in this country.
It can never be perfect, but we can try to remove the most glaring legal contradictions.
But clearly states were supposed to be the main sovereign unit.
Now the federal government is way out of hand, and is totally illegal.
We then have the largest incarcerated % in the world, due to illegal things like the federal War on Drugs.

That brings to mind this quote:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." —Thomas Jefferson

.

 

[Slade3200]

I didn't say background checks were the solution to the problem. I dont think there is A solution that will solve the problem... but there are several things that can be done to help reduce the damage. Background check are one of those things.

We already have background checks for weapons purchased from a dealer at a shop or gun show. We have had killers who did pass the background check and still used those weapons for mass murders.

Your right it’s not a full proof system, some get through. Would you do away with the background check system we have or do you think it is doing some good?

Half and half on that.

Are they stopping people not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one at a dealer? Yes they are. Are they stopping people who are not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one elsewhere? No it doesn't.

Go to your pharmacist and ask for a bottle of Oxycontin, and he refuses to sell it to you without a prescription. Go to the street and it's ready available.

The question is, did you solve anything by forcing the addict to buy from the street instead of the drug store? No you didn't. Did you stop all law abiding citizens? Yes you did.

So let's say a evil or twisted person wants to commit a mass murder. Do you really think that the inability to buy a firearm at a dealer will make him say "Oh well, I guess I can't do it now!"

London is trying to institute a law that stops people from carrying knives outside of their home. Why? Because knife killings surpassed murders in New York City even with the available guns.

It's the old cliche. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take a nice middle-class suburb, and create a law that all households must have at least one firearm, you won't change the crime statics one bit. Create a law in lower income neighborhoods that nobody is allowed to own a firearm, the same thing. You won't change the crime statistics one bit.

Some might go find a dealer and get Oxy and others won’t... it’s the others that make a difference in this discussion. The ones that don’t. And with guns unlike drugs, they are literally made as a tool to harm others. So more reason to be more careful

Wrong. The total purpose of weapons like guns are defense. Even a thief generally does not have the goal of murder. So they use the gun only as necessary for defense. And clearly guns defend hundreds of times more than they harm.

Agreed, for most

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Except that all drug dealers already have to have guns to protect their illegal profits, so they won't mind at all selling some guns as well and increase their profits a little bit more.
Everyone knows where they can buy an illegal gun.
Several of them have even offered to sell me a machine gun.

No, everyone does not know where to get an illegal gun. Some do and others can find out if they try hard enough. But there are also others who don’t and who are prevented from getting dangerous weapons because we have it regulated

That is impossible stupid.
Clearly over 60% of the US population has experience with illegal drugs according to polls, so they then all know where to get drugs and guns. There is not one drug dealer who is not also armed, because they work in cash, so need defense. So all more gun laws will do is create another revenue source for drug deals. You can never reduce firearm access because no one will agree to that. The general population will do like they do with drugs or with Prohibition, and just deliberately disobey the corrupt government that has lost its credibility.
Any they do not have to get firearms to be dangerous.
A can of gasoline has killed hundreds of people already, is put in the right place.
What you suggest is naively foolish, diabolically deceptive.

That’s total horseshit. The fact that you think every drug deal also deals guns is laughable. I can’t take you seriously now. I tried

I wasn't following all the all the conversation with the other poster and you.....

But.... just my personal experience... When I was in high school in the 1990s, the drug dealer, was also the guy you talked to if you wanted a gun.

Now, there were other drug dealers I'm sure, and there were other gun dealers as well..... but.... yeah, the drug guy, was also the gun guy in high school.

That should be obvious, not only because all drug dealers need guns, but that they are profit motivated and will find what you want if they can. And all illegal drug dealers can easily get guns as well as their drugs.

And they already seek to profit from an illegal black market (created by the bullshit war on drugs) so it is a natural pairing to operate in the illegal gun trade black market.

.

 

[Leo123]

Wrong again.
What goes into a constitution is not legal unless it is based the legal premise of the form of government.
In a democratic republic, that means the only restriction you can infringe on the rights of anyone else is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of someone else.
If there are defects in a constitution, that violate rights without being justifies by the defense of other rights, then it is not legal, even in the constitution. Constitutions can not be just arbitrary from popular consent, but must not infringe upon the rights of any one single individual, unless absolutely necessary.
That is why we keep amending the Constitution in this country.
It can never be perfect, but we can try to remove the most glaring legal contradictions.
But clearly states were supposed to be the main sovereign unit.
Now the federal government is way out of hand, and is totally illegal.
We then have the largest incarcerated % in the world, due to illegal things like the federal War on Drugs.

Where in the Constitution of the U.S. does it say one can infringe on anyone's rights? Amendments are ADDITIONS not corrections. They are basically intended to be clarifications and/or contemporary definitions of words and phrases that may have meant something different when first penned. Of course any amendment is subject to human frailty so....IMO....The less 'updating' of our Constitution the better.....Better to actually TEACH our children about the founders and what times they lived in. When we forget history, we jeopardize our future.

 

[Slade3200]

The Dumbest argument yet. Slade, you haven't the brains to make me feel good about you owning a gun.

What proves you wrong is the fact that millions, like over half of Americans according to polls, support gun control measures.

Back to the popular vote as if this is how the Founder's operated. Distance people from guns, build them up as a threat in the public's eye. People who now have never seen a gun, never owned or shot one, don't know the first thing about them. Flood them with negative media about them, raise them in schools that make you afraid to even say the word gun, draw a picture of one, even point your finger. Then once you've got them conditioned to fear guns and associate them with only murder and killing, after having removed Civil Liberties classes from school, after having painted the Founders as bad people, slave owners, etc., ask them their opinions on gun control! On top of that, after already having 12,000 gun control laws on the books! Yeah! That's how to run a country!

These are people who are neither in government nor hoping for government to control them.

History is REPLETE with populations who never wanted government to control them, that nevertheless ended up under brutal oppression.

They support it because they feel like it makes them safer

History is replete with idiots who agreed to sacrifice liberty for perceived safety who ended up with neither.

so it would do you some good to try and listen with an open mind.

Fuck you. You're just another gun grabber posing as a constitutional and 2nd amendment supporter. Fuck off. No matter what logic or proof presented you, you just circle back to wanting "common sense" gun controls when there is no such thing. You don't give an inch on gun rights because history shows that once you open the doors to concessions, the flood gates just open wide. None of this bullshit will work to solve serial killings because it does nothing to address the actual cause, so then just gets used as more and more justification to stricter gun restrictions. We'll all end up like NYS where you have to beg the state for the "privilege" to own a gun, you have to "justify" it, then you have to keep it locked away where you can't even reach it. This would all be different if there was actually any data showing that the places with the tightest gun laws were any safer, but instead, they end up having the most gun violence. The entire gun debate is aimed at one thing: DISARMING AMERICA.

You don’t need to agree but at least try and understand their perspective.

Here's an idea for you, Clown: FUCK YOU. Go to the gun grabbers and tell them to come listen to us and at least try to understand OUR perspective! We stand with the U.S. Constitution. You want our guns, come and try to take them.

You’re running on full emotions. Why don’t you calm down and come back after you’ve regained some sensibility

 

[Slade3200]

No, everyone does not know where to get an illegal gun. Some do and others can find out if they try hard enough. But there are also others who don’t and who are prevented from getting dangerous weapons because we have it regulated

Prove it.

Show me the person who was going to go on a mass shooting spree, or just join in on a normal night in Chicago, who was unable to find a gun, and thus didn't.

Where are these people? I have yet to hear of a single one.

I do know of a woman who owned a gun, but was prohibited by law from carrying it in a restaurant, and a mad man with a gun started shooting people, and all she could do was watch both her mother and father get shot and killed.



So if you don't know the story, Suzanna Hupp was having dinner with her parents, when a crazy nut drove his truck through the front of the store. He started shooting people. Her father attempted to stop the attacker, and was shot. Her mother seeing her husband shot, went after him, and was shot.

The sad part of the story, is that Suzanna owned a weapon, and had the gun in her car, because it wasn't legal for her to carry it with her.

So while people were being slaughtered, the means to defend themselves was in the parking lot on the other side of the gun man.

Just another of hundreds of examples where gun-controller killed people with their evil policies. If anything we should be demanding left-wingers answer for all the deaths they caused, than Trump.

How does one prove something that didn’t happen?

So you are saying the claim you made, which was stated as a fact, is inherently impossible to prove, and therefor just opinion?

Ok. I agree.

I didn’t state anything as fact. I’m expressing my opinion and using common sense so when you ask me to prove something that can’t be proven I explain why. I just dont understand how you can argue against the logic that regulations reduce access which reduces firepower which reduces carnage/damage. It’s not rocket science

Again..... you are making a claim with that statement. You are saying.... regulation will reduce access... which will reduce firepower.... which will reduce carnage and damage.

Great. Prove the claim. Can you prove it? No you can not.

That is in fact just opinion. And if we're just arguing opinion vs opinion... then I disagree.

I believe that regulation will affect only those people who obey the regulation. Regulations have unintended consequences.

The strip mall down the street is a perfect example.

View attachment 274457

They have a road that goes behind and mall, and connects to some housing. People were driving fast through the parking lot to get behind the mall. So they installed speed bumps in the parking lot. Well as you can see, there are other ways through the parking lot, and people were just going around the speed bumps.

So then they decided to put in a by pass road. But people were driving fast on that road too. So they put in speed bumps. So people stopped using the by pass, and were driving through the parking lot again.

Now they don't have any speed bumps.

Each time they put in 'regulations' in the parking lot, people found an easy way around them.

What was the solution? Instead of trying to put speed bumps across the entire planet, if someone hits someone, they call the police, and have the person penalized. That's the solution.

Similarly.....

Again, no amount of regulation stopped alcohol during prohibition. None. In fact, by the end of prohibition, it was easier to find alcohol, than it was when it was legal, because not every single corner had a speak easy when it was legal.

Al Capone, had a network that reached from the east coast to the west coast, and from Canada to Mexico, and that didn't include the thousands on thousands of moonshiners throughout the middle of the country.

If someone wanted a drink, it was easy to get. Why didn't the regulations reduce access, and reduce intoxication, and reduce the damage?

Similarly, why has not the regulations on opioids reduced access to opioids, and reduced addiction, and reduced the damage?

By any measure, regulations on drugs have increased, with the only exception of pot.

View attachment 274458

Why have deaths dramatically increased, with all the drug units, drug regulations, drug enforcement personnel?

Because your system..... does.... not..... work. Period. End of story! It simply does not work! Never has, by the way. Never. Not one time in all human history, has your plan worked. Regulations have never stopped anything, or reduced the damage of anything. Never. No example exists.

France, with AK-47s. UK with gangs that are armed with Grenades. How did the Christchurch shootings even happen? Australia has unbelievable tough laws.

How does this happen? Why didn't their far tougher regulations, reduce access? Why didn't it limit the damage?

And by the way, yes the level of violence is lower there, but it was much lower than the US *BEFORE* the regulations against guns were put in place. And by the way, gun violence has gone up recently in those places.

So how do you explain that?

I can explain it. The only people that are affected by gun regulations.... are those that follow the law. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. You can't point to a single example where a person intending to do murder, decided not to because of a gun regulation. No criminal is sitting there "Oh I was going to kill that guy, but that would violate a gun law! So I decided not to".

And if they are not going to follow the law.... then the regulations mean nothing. Just like the regulations on alcohol meant nothing during prohibition, and how regulations on Heroin mean nothing today.

Laws limiting access to guns, will only limit access to the law abiding public. The criminals in society, never followed the laws to begin with, and a law on guns will be equally ignored by them.

I literally just addressed the proof thing and now you’re asking again?!?! I give up

 

[Leo123]

That should be obvious, not only because all drug dealers need guns, but that they are profit motivated and will find what you want if they can. And all illegal drug dealers can easily get guns as well as their drugs.

It ain't the gun it's the illegality of the substance. Remember Prohibition? The criminals 'graduated' to the Thompson (Tommy Gun) Sub Machine gun. You know, the one with the 'drum' cartridge? All because Alcohol (C2H60), was made illegal. Machine guns were basically 'controlled' in 1934 with the National Firearms Act of 1934 which placed a then huge tax of $200 on the sale of machine guns.

Today we have graduated to wanting every law abiding American citizen to jump through hoops and pay extra hard earned money just to OWN a gun. NOW California requires one PAY the DMV for a 'special' driver's license before one can purchase AMMO!!

Stupid alcohol and now drug laws are causing all kinds of problems for US and, in the meantime, there are powerful assholes (who themselves have private security with GUNS) telling US we can't be trusted with GUNS!!!! Does anyone else see the INSANITY in that! Rant over.

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

It is when you realize that implementing it will lead to all sorts of abuse.....

What criteria? Who decides? How do you appeal? Who pays for the appeal?

Great questions. Let get a plan in place and answer those. Right now we are stuck in this game of all or nothing. I don’t see why it’s dofficult for the majority of us to agree on the simple notion that responsible people should have guns and high risk people shouldn’t. The first step is to agree on that. Then put a process in place that determines how it’s executed

Wrong.
High risk people are the same danger regardless of gun laws or even gun access.
They can use other technology just as easily.
Anyone suggesting that guns are what need restricting, instead of the dangerous people themselves, is just deliberately lying because they want to disarm society so that it can be more easily and universally abused.
The federal government has already show that it wants to be abusive, such as lying about WMD, murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, etc.

It’s not an “either or” both gum regs and working on the people can work. What’s the saying? Walk and chew gum

No you can not work on both at the same time, gun control and medical health to identify dangerous people.
That is because weapons do about 1000 times more good than harm.
The only possible way to defend against crime is to be armed, and there are over 1.1 million serious and violent crimes each year. So clearly gun control laws do a great deal of harm.
They are not capable of going any good then, at all.

Great then let’s work to make sure responsibility people get guns and dangerous people don’t.

 

[Slade3200]

Your right it’s not a full proof system, some get through. Would you do away with the background check system we have or do you think it is doing some good?

Half and half on that.

Are they stopping people not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one at a dealer? Yes they are. Are they stopping people who are not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one elsewhere? No it doesn't.

Go to your pharmacist and ask for a bottle of Oxycontin, and he refuses to sell it to you without a prescription. Go to the street and it's ready available.

The question is, did you solve anything by forcing the addict to buy from the street instead of the drug store? No you didn't. Did you stop all law abiding citizens? Yes you did.

So let's say a evil or twisted person wants to commit a mass murder. Do you really think that the inability to buy a firearm at a dealer will make him say "Oh well, I guess I can't do it now!"

London is trying to institute a law that stops people from carrying knives outside of their home. Why? Because knife killings surpassed murders in New York City even with the available guns.

It's the old cliche. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take a nice middle-class suburb, and create a law that all households must have at least one firearm, you won't change the crime statics one bit. Create a law in lower income neighborhoods that nobody is allowed to own a firearm, the same thing. You won't change the crime statistics one bit.

Some might go find a dealer and get Oxy and others won’t... it’s the others that make a difference in this discussion. The ones that don’t. And with guns unlike drugs, they are literally made as a tool to harm others. So more reason to be more careful

But the gun-grabbers have acted in bad faith, don't you agree.

They are not trustworthy, right?

.

You are fighting fiction. Your fighting me right now and I’m a gun owner. So apparently you can’t debate unless your doing so against a made up enemy. Do what you gotta do dude

I was not lumping you in with the despicable.

It is a FACT that the issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right was challenged by the gun-grabbers all the way to the SCOTUS.

LET THAT SINK IN.

They would not even admit that it is an individual right. FACT.

And we're supposed to compromise with that filth?

They will need to give some things up to demonstrate good faith before we can ever trust them again.

Tell me where I am wrong on that.

.

I dont really care what a bunch of kooks did. You keep going back to that when I’m trying to have a rational discussion. Ok you oppose gun grabbers who want to take away guns. Great me too. Now what?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Half and half on that.

Are they stopping people not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one at a dealer? Yes they are. Are they stopping people who are not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one elsewhere? No it doesn't.

Go to your pharmacist and ask for a bottle of Oxycontin, and he refuses to sell it to you without a prescription. Go to the street and it's ready available.

The question is, did you solve anything by forcing the addict to buy from the street instead of the drug store? No you didn't. Did you stop all law abiding citizens? Yes you did.

So let's say a evil or twisted person wants to commit a mass murder. Do you really think that the inability to buy a firearm at a dealer will make him say "Oh well, I guess I can't do it now!"

London is trying to institute a law that stops people from carrying knives outside of their home. Why? Because knife killings surpassed murders in New York City even with the available guns.

It's the old cliche. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take a nice middle-class suburb, and create a law that all households must have at least one firearm, you won't change the crime statics one bit. Create a law in lower income neighborhoods that nobody is allowed to own a firearm, the same thing. You won't change the crime statistics one bit.

Some might go find a dealer and get Oxy and others won’t... it’s the others that make a difference in this discussion. The ones that don’t. And with guns unlike drugs, they are literally made as a tool to harm others. So more reason to be more careful

But the gun-grabbers have acted in bad faith, don't you agree.

They are not trustworthy, right?

.

You are fighting fiction. Your fighting me right now and I’m a gun owner. So apparently you can’t debate unless your doing so against a made up enemy. Do what you gotta do dude

I was not lumping you in with the despicable.

It is a FACT that the issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right was challenged by the gun-grabbers all the way to the SCOTUS.

LET THAT SINK IN.

They would not even admit that it is an individual right. FACT.

And we're supposed to compromise with that filth?

They will need to give some things up to demonstrate good faith before we can ever trust them again.

Tell me where I am wrong on that.

.

I dont really care what a bunch of kooks did. You keep going back to that when I’m trying to have a rational discussion. Ok you oppose gun grabbers who want to take away guns. Great me too. Now what?

You keep missing the point.

They must give up something before we do.

Example: repeal the Hughes Amendment first (which was covertly slipped into the final gun protection bill - more gun grabbers acting in bad faith). Only after they unilaterally give up something first, will we talk about other changes.

There must be a clear, unilateral concession by the gun grabbers or NOTHING and we will go to war (literally) if they try to force one Goddamn thing.

.

 

[Slade3200]

How much more honest can you be you ask? Much more... you can start by not saying I said things like “spy” when I never said anything I’d the sort. That would be a good start.

Spying on Americans is not the only way, there are many ways to flag somebody at risk. It can be done by doctors, family, friends employers. And there would be a process to evaluate.

What would you propose Ray? Do nothing to prevent mental people from getting guns except for Arm those around them so they can defend themselves? What are your bright ideas?

Let's be honest...... 12 mass public shootings in 2018. total killed, 93. That is slightly more than are killed by lawn mowers each year. As people keep stating, we already have laws that can be used, the problem is that government keeps failing to use them....Parkland for example....over 30 visits by police....red flag after red flag....what kept them from preventing the attack (possibly)....the Obama "Promise Program" that encouraged the police and the school from pressing felony charges against the shooter....so they could keep their student arrest rate low.......

The Texas Church shooter...... the Air Force failed to put his records into NICS.......

A new red flag law wouldn't have prevented either one of those...because the government agencies meant to monitor these situations failed to do it.

Well I agree, we need to do better with the laws we have in the books because that would help. laws can help. Agreed?

Laws can not at all help if the laws totally violate the Constitution, and all federal gun laws most definitely do that and are totally illegal.

I disagree. Those laws are totally legal

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is only to ensure absolute jurisdiction restriction on the federal government.
And the 2nd amendment is totally denying any federal jurisdiction over weapons at all.
That is because states, municipalities, counties, and individuals need defensive firearms.
Clearly only states, counties, and cities can write any legal gun laws, because they have to vary and have local input.
You can't have the same gun laws in Alaska bear country, and NYC.

I dont remember if I asked you earlier... do you consider it unconstitutional to restrict a business from selling an uzi to a 12 year old?

 

[Andylusion]

Prove it.

Show me the person who was going to go on a mass shooting spree, or just join in on a normal night in Chicago, who was unable to find a gun, and thus didn't.

Where are these people? I have yet to hear of a single one.

I do know of a woman who owned a gun, but was prohibited by law from carrying it in a restaurant, and a mad man with a gun started shooting people, and all she could do was watch both her mother and father get shot and killed.



So if you don't know the story, Suzanna Hupp was having dinner with her parents, when a crazy nut drove his truck through the front of the store. He started shooting people. Her father attempted to stop the attacker, and was shot. Her mother seeing her husband shot, went after him, and was shot.

The sad part of the story, is that Suzanna owned a weapon, and had the gun in her car, because it wasn't legal for her to carry it with her.

So while people were being slaughtered, the means to defend themselves was in the parking lot on the other side of the gun man.

Just another of hundreds of examples where gun-controller killed people with their evil policies. If anything we should be demanding left-wingers answer for all the deaths they caused, than Trump.

How does one prove something that didn’t happen?

So you are saying the claim you made, which was stated as a fact, is inherently impossible to prove, and therefor just opinion?

Ok. I agree.

I didn’t state anything as fact. I’m expressing my opinion and using common sense so when you ask me to prove something that can’t be proven I explain why. I just dont understand how you can argue against the logic that regulations reduce access which reduces firepower which reduces carnage/damage. It’s not rocket science

Again..... you are making a claim with that statement. You are saying.... regulation will reduce access... which will reduce firepower.... which will reduce carnage and damage.

Great. Prove the claim. Can you prove it? No you can not.

That is in fact just opinion. And if we're just arguing opinion vs opinion... then I disagree.

I believe that regulation will affect only those people who obey the regulation. Regulations have unintended consequences.

The strip mall down the street is a perfect example.

View attachment 274457

They have a road that goes behind and mall, and connects to some housing. People were driving fast through the parking lot to get behind the mall. So they installed speed bumps in the parking lot. Well as you can see, there are other ways through the parking lot, and people were just going around the speed bumps.

So then they decided to put in a by pass road. But people were driving fast on that road too. So they put in speed bumps. So people stopped using the by pass, and were driving through the parking lot again.

Now they don't have any speed bumps.

Each time they put in 'regulations' in the parking lot, people found an easy way around them.

What was the solution? Instead of trying to put speed bumps across the entire planet, if someone hits someone, they call the police, and have the person penalized. That's the solution.

Similarly.....

Again, no amount of regulation stopped alcohol during prohibition. None. In fact, by the end of prohibition, it was easier to find alcohol, than it was when it was legal, because not every single corner had a speak easy when it was legal.

Al Capone, had a network that reached from the east coast to the west coast, and from Canada to Mexico, and that didn't include the thousands on thousands of moonshiners throughout the middle of the country.

If someone wanted a drink, it was easy to get. Why didn't the regulations reduce access, and reduce intoxication, and reduce the damage?

Similarly, why has not the regulations on opioids reduced access to opioids, and reduced addiction, and reduced the damage?

By any measure, regulations on drugs have increased, with the only exception of pot.

View attachment 274458

Why have deaths dramatically increased, with all the drug units, drug regulations, drug enforcement personnel?

Because your system..... does.... not..... work. Period. End of story! It simply does not work! Never has, by the way. Never. Not one time in all human history, has your plan worked. Regulations have never stopped anything, or reduced the damage of anything. Never. No example exists.

France, with AK-47s. UK with gangs that are armed with Grenades. How did the Christchurch shootings even happen? Australia has unbelievable tough laws.

How does this happen? Why didn't their far tougher regulations, reduce access? Why didn't it limit the damage?

And by the way, yes the level of violence is lower there, but it was much lower than the US *BEFORE* the regulations against guns were put in place. And by the way, gun violence has gone up recently in those places.

So how do you explain that?

I can explain it. The only people that are affected by gun regulations.... are those that follow the law. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. You can't point to a single example where a person intending to do murder, decided not to because of a gun regulation. No criminal is sitting there "Oh I was going to kill that guy, but that would violate a gun law! So I decided not to".

And if they are not going to follow the law.... then the regulations mean nothing. Just like the regulations on alcohol meant nothing during prohibition, and how regulations on Heroin mean nothing today.

Laws limiting access to guns, will only limit access to the law abiding public. The criminals in society, never followed the laws to begin with, and a law on guns will be equally ignored by them.

I literally just addressed the proof thing and now you’re asking again?!?! I give up

It's funny how I can easily provide contrary proof... but you give up.

Ok, give up. That solves both our problems.

And in the future, just don't make statements that you can't provide actual proof of. Someone will call you out. If not me, someone else will.