Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Andylusion]

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.

Impossible. The only thing you can do, is greatly increase law enforcement, and when someone does do something bad, you need to exact just punishment.

If you do those two things.... that will reduce the number of dangerous people, with or without guns. Let's do that. Let actually deal with criminals. There's an idea.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

I will consider it unconstitutional, if we don't get a unilateral concession on gun laws/regulation.

I will consider GIVING (not selling) belt-fed machine guns to 2-year-old girls if we get no unilateral concession.

.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Every law infringes some.
It is just that there has to be a compromise between the infringement on others if there is no law, and the infringement on the accused if the law is too powerful.

As for the amendments, some are additions, some restrictive fine adjustment, some total repeal.
Like the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment, and ended prohibition.

But in general I agree.
The less updating the better, unless necessary.
However, any federal gun law, drug law, etc., are just totally wrong and clearly illegal.
They totally compromise our entire federal credibility.

 

[Rigby5]

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 is obvious you are totally wrong because you claimed that more regulations would reduce firepower, and therefore save lives.
That is ridiculous if you were to be honest and admit that 99.9% of gun owners are not the problem, and in fact use firearms to reduce crime.
So then what you suggest is like disarming police, since honest armed citizens actually are the real police when it comes to stopping crimes.
So increasing gun regulations will only reduce the defensive firepower, but not the offensive firepower of criminals, so then will only make the situation much, much worse.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Correct.
When government incorrectly tries to legislate something, the result will just be a larger and more dangerous black market, that increases crime.
Does not matter if it is drugs, alcohol, or guns.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

But you do not succeed in making sure irresponsible get guns by even more draconian gun laws.
That just creates a larger black market that is even more lucrative.
You have to identify dangerous people and prevent them from getting any dangerous substance.

Take the Assault Weapons Ban proposal for example.
Sounds good because no one needs full auto military killing machines in their home.
But that is not what an Assault Weapons Ban really is.
The reality is that an assault weapon is how it is used, not what it is.
For example, in the Civil War, a pair of revolvers was the assault weapons of its time.
In WWI it was the pump shotgun.
In WWII it likely was carbines.
So the point is, those who pen an Assault Weapons Ban likely know that over 99% of all the firearm sold then could be used as assault weapons, and therefore banned.
It is deliberate deception then, with the intent being a total ban on essentially all firearms, followed likely by illegal confiscations, in violation of the ex post facto laws.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

.

I get your point. I just don’t play the team sport them and us game... it’s all we in my opinion and I’m just looking for the best solutions

 

[Rigby5]

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?

I will consider it unconstitutional, if we don't get a unilateral concession on gun laws/regulation.

I will consider GIVING (not selling) belt-fed machine guns to 2-year-old girls if we get no unilateral concession.

.

Federal gun laws, even making it a crime to give machineguns to 2 year olds, is not legal.
The 2nd amendment forbids any federal jurisdiction over weapons at all.
It is up to states and cities to pass weapons laws instead.

 

[Rustic]

And when Democrats are in power, who would decide that?

Whoever writes the bill and votes to pass it. Hopefully it is bipartisan

Lol
Universal background checks equals firearm registration equals firearm confiscation... At that point the rest the constitution will be meaningless Gibberish...

None of that is true. Stop lying

Lol
It is true... absolutely

Lol
It’s false... absolutely

Is it fun for you to debate like a tard?

Universal background checks = firearm registration = firearm confiscation... fact

 

[Rigby5]

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.

.

I get your point. I just don’t play the team sport them and us game... it’s all we in my opinion and I’m just looking for the best solutions

The best solution is more public health care access, and state and local gun laws instead of any federal gun laws.
The federal government is too distant, corrupt, expensive, and uncaring.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I give up because you keep repeating things that I address. I’m all for legalizing drugs, that’s been a pointless war. But completely different than guns.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Impossible. The only thing you can do, is greatly increase law enforcement, and when someone does do something bad, you need to exact just punishment.

If you do those two things.... that will reduce the number of dangerous people, with or without guns. Let's do that. Let actually deal with criminals. There's an idea.

I problem... I’m all for that

 

[Slade3200]

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?

I will consider it unconstitutional, if we don't get a unilateral concession on gun laws/regulation.

I will consider GIVING (not selling) belt-fed machine guns to 2-year-old girls if we get no unilateral concession.

.

You need to run for office man... please!!!

 

[Slade3200]

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 is obvious you are totally wrong because you claimed that more regulations would reduce firepower, and therefore save lives.
That is ridiculous if you were to be honest and admit that 99.9% of gun owners are not the problem, and in fact use firearms to reduce crime.
So then what you suggest is like disarming police, since honest armed citizens actually are the real police when it comes to stopping crimes.
So increasing gun regulations will only reduce the defensive firepower, but not the offensive firepower of criminals, so then will only make the situation much, much worse.

The 99.9% of gun owners that you speak of are not significantly impacted. I’m one of the 99.9%.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

But you do not succeed in making sure irresponsible get guns by even more draconian gun laws.
That just creates a larger black market that is even more lucrative.
You have to identify dangerous people and prevent them from getting any dangerous substance.

Take the Assault Weapons Ban proposal for example.
Sounds good because no one needs full auto military killing machines in their home.
But that is not what an Assault Weapons Ban really is.
The reality is that an assault weapon is how it is used, not what it is.
For example, in the Civil War, a pair of revolvers was the assault weapons of its time.
In WWI it was the pump shotgun.
In WWII it likely was carbines.
So the point is, those who pen an Assault Weapons Ban likely know that over 99% of all the firearm sold then could be used as assault weapons, and therefore banned.
It is deliberate deception then, with the intent being a total ban on essentially all firearms, followed likely by illegal confiscations, in violation of the ex post facto laws.

Of course it limits access, that’s just common sense. Sure some will go to the black market if they really want a gun. Others won’t. It’s those who don’t which I care about

 

[Slade3200]

Whoever writes the bill and votes to pass it. Hopefully it is bipartisan

Lol
Universal background checks equals firearm registration equals firearm confiscation... At that point the rest the constitution will be meaningless Gibberish...

None of that is true. Stop lying

Lol
It is true... absolutely

Lol
It’s false... absolutely

Is it fun for you to debate like a tard?

Universal background checks = firearm registration = firearm confiscation... fact

You are an idiot. Fact

 

[Slade3200]

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.

.

I get your point. I just don’t play the team sport them and us game... it’s all we in my opinion and I’m just looking for the best solutions

The best solution is more public health care access, and state and local gun laws instead of any federal gun laws.
The federal government is too distant, corrupt, expensive, and uncaring.

I support that for the most part. Some federal laws may help but I prefer local over fed when possible

 

[Leo123]

But you do not succeed in making sure irresponsible get guns by even more draconian gun laws.
That just creates a larger black market that is even more lucrative.
You have to identify dangerous people and prevent them from getting any dangerous substance.

Take the Assault Weapons Ban proposal for example.
Sounds good because no one needs full auto military killing machines in their home.
But that is not what an Assault Weapons Ban really is.
The reality is that an assault weapon is how it is used, not what it is.
For example, in the Civil War, a pair of revolvers was the assault weapons of its time.
In WWI it was the pump shotgun.
In WWII it likely was carbines.
So the point is, those who pen an Assault Weapons Ban likely know that over 99% of all the firearm sold then could be used as assault weapons, and therefore banned.
It is deliberate deception then, with the intent being a total ban on essentially all firearms, followed likely by illegal confiscations, in violation of the ex post facto laws.

Yes, the Neo-Marxist gun-grabbers try to change the meanings of words. The left MSM picks up on it an Viola!! Suddenly an 'assault weapon' is anything they want to claim it is and every incident where that gun is involved is suddenly the fault of the gun!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

And if he didn't deal in guns, he knew of somebody that did.

 

[Flash]

[Q


That is the Red Flag Law in a nutshell. It does take into consideration Due Process.

Bullshit!