Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
Universal background checks = firearm registration = firearm confiscation... fact
What proves you wrong is the fact that millions, like over half of Americans according to polls, support gun control measures. These are people who are neither in government nor hoping for government to control them. They support it because they feel like it makes them safer so it would do you some good to try and listen with an open mind. You don’t need to agree but at least try and understand their perspective. That way you won’t keep misstating it and sounding like you don’t know what you’re talking about.t
Who said anything about being critical of government as a disqualifying factor?! You’re injecting that into the conversation.People who are deemed violent and or mentally unstableWho are the wrong hands?
Who gets to decide that?
Whatcha gonna do when big government decides YOU are the wrong hands?
If anyone actually had an accurate predictive way to know in advance whose hands would be truly wrong, we'd already be preventing 90% of all gun murders and would be able to re-institute automatic weapons while removing 90% of the gun laws off the books.
That is not at all legal.
That is what you expect in Russia, where anyone who is critical of the government is deemed violent or mentally unstable.
That not how law is supposed to work.
Anyone who is actually violent or mentally unstable should be involuntarily committed.
Preventing them from legally being able to buy a gun does nothing except corrupt the system.
A violent or mentally unstable person can still easily get a gun illegally, or flammables, poisons, explosives, large vehicles, etc.
What you suggest makes no sense, and it totally contrary to a democratic republic.
And what I say makes sense to millions who support gun control measures. Yes, some people will have contacts to get guns on the black market but others won’t and we need to have some safeguards in place so they can’t just walk into any old store and walk out with the power to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. Call me crazy if you must
That is silly.
Interjecting suppression of anything or anyone critical of government is EXACTLY what governments ALWAYS do!
Federal gun control is always a guaranteed means of suppressing any dissent, and being able to completely dominate and intimidate the entire population.
That is always the only point of any gun control, and always has been.
What you say your intent is makes no sense to anyone because they never actually thought about it.
They go by hysterical emotions that make no sense at all.
You are suggesting we try to disarm 100% of the non-government population, so that the criminal 0.1% can not just buy a gun from a gun store. And that clearly is ridiculous because the 0.1% who are criminals, already have their guns, and get all then need from drug traffickers from South America, Southeast Asia, the Balkans, etc.
All gun control laws do is disarm the honest people who we need and want to be armed, and all federal gun laws to is create a corrupt federal government that is not even supposed to be passing ANY weapons law at all.
You are crazy.
Obviously anyone too dangerous to allow to walk into a gun store to buy a gun, also can not be allowed in a fertilizer store to buy explosives, to buy gasoline, to buy poisons, etc.
Guns are likely the LEAST dangerous thing people could buy.
With something like ricin, which is easily obtained, one could not only kill thousands, but not even get caught.
It is clear you have NO understanding of technology, society, or common sense.
So it bares repeating, you are crazy is you support federal gun control in any way, shape, or form.
You should support gun safety, we all should. How do you support it and promote more people to partake?They are not. Anyone can own a car.Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.
Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...
Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.
View attachment 59771
you forget what happened to all of our cars when we were forced to get licenses!
every car was confiscated!
and then when they forced us to get wedding licenses our brides were all rounded up and taken away!
same thing will happen with guns!
If you don't know I'll tell you
You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.
Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?
The license is to operate the car on public roads, which is not a right.
But, if the aim is to make sure we have people trained to safely use arms, we can accomplish that goal without the need for licensing.
I, and many like me, SUPPORT education in the safe and effective use of arms. Why wouldn't we?
.
I was talking about a college kid but but as you said young kids can’t buy now.. thank god. A good law that’s not covered in the constitution wouldn’t you agree?No kid can buy a handgun nowHow do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.Building bombs and molesting children are crimes. Somebody saying they are a white supremacist or saying they hate Mexicans on social media is not.
Regardless, in order to spy on anybody, you need a surveillance warrant to do that. Image how backlogged our courts would be with 20 million cases of accusations every year.
Then there is the fact that building bombs or molesting children are not constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is. That means the accused is allowed to have their day in court. You simply can't take away a constitutional right without a proper court hearing, and the ability of the accused to appeal decisions ruled against them.
But even if we had the ability to entertain all that, are you going to tell me that will stop all mass gun murders?
That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.
If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?
See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.
It’s all part of the big plan.
Get it?
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
We aren’t comparing rights to privileges. We are showing cause and effect. You’re twisting the argument. Regulations are either effective or not, that’s the discussionDriving is not a rightThere’s the knee jerk again, haha. I’m not talking about rights. I’m talking about cause and effect. You are shifting the argument. First you say that licensing/registration has no practical effects. And then when we point to areas where it has a practical effect you jump to the “Rights” argument. You can do better than that.Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.
If you don't know I'll tell you
You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.
Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?
Since driving is a privilege and not a right the state can require people to pass a basic competency test before being granted the privilege of driving. The drivers license is proof to law enforcement that you did indeed meet that requirement and have been granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.
I think we all know that licensing is a way to verifying that a person is qualified, capable and responsible enough to hold the legal power of driving a car. It’s done for public safety and law enforcement reasons. Same logic can be used for guns... but but I know, driving isn’t a right and gun ownership is... that’s Not the point!!!!
The state can place any stipulations it wants on drivers because it is not a right
There is no analogy that can adequately be used to compare a right to a privilege
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Cars kill 38,000 people because they are dangerous. Wanna make an educated guess which way that number would go if there were no regulations? No seat belt laws, no licensing requirements, no speed limitsIm so tired of the knee jerk reaction “driving isn’t a right” retort. that has nothing to do with his point which was regarding the effects of licensing and registrationLet’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.
If you don't know I'll tell you
You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.
Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?
Owning a car is not a Right. Democrats used Poll Taxes to charge a fee against Blacks for the Right to vote, and it was struck down under the 14th Amendment.
Murdock v Pennsylvania states that you can't be charged a fee to exercise a Right...
That is why licensing gun owners is unConstitutional.
It has everything to do with the point...... and if licensing was such a fix for cars, why do they kill 38,000 people?
Registration does nothing for guns...other than allow politicians to confiscate them...which we have seen all over the world.
That exact strategy has been proven to workGreat then let’s work to make sure responsibility people get guns and dangerous people don’t.It’s not an “either or” both gum regs and working on the people can work. What’s the saying? Walk and chew gumGreat 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.
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.
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.
Yep,Great example of how gun control does nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Especially background checks because there is no way he would have ever passed a NICS check. Philadelphia shooter.
First, what purpose do you believe will be served by making it more difficult for criminals and crazies to buy guns? Do you really think being unable to buy a gun for a reasonable price at a legal gun store will stop someone, anyone, who wants a gun from getting one?I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.
Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...
Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.
Have you ever heard of Prohibition? How about the current War On Drugs? This has been going on at near police-state intensity for more than three decades and the result has been drugs are more available today than they were when this counterproductive folly was started -- and they cost less.
We who oppose any further nibbling away at the Second Amendment are well aware that guns cannot be controlled anymore than drugs can. We know that nothing can come of this endless attempt to disarm us other than further inconvenience to legitimate gun owners. Because if the background check idea is enacted it's not going to end there. Little by little these anti-gun opportunists, most of whom know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, and are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, won't stop until your Second Amendment rights are limited to keeping a single-shot .22 rifle chambered for short, and bearing it to a federally supervised range.
Guns are in this Nation's DNA. Nothing short of totalitarian, door-busting, full-bore police-state methods will put an end to the occasional shooting, mass-shooting, and armed stand-off. So let's put an end to this creeping prohibition before it reaches that level.
The only gun law I approve of is a comprehensive training requirement and competence test for anyone who wishes to own a gun or guns -- and intensified training for anyone who wishes to carry -- open or concealed.
(Pardon the excessive boldface. It is the result of a quirk I can't control.)
Driving is not a rightThere’s the knee jerk again, haha. I’m not talking about rights. I’m talking about cause and effect. You are shifting the argument. First you say that licensing/registration has no practical effects. And then when we point to areas where it has a practical effect you jump to the “Rights” argument. You can do better than that.Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.you forget what happened to all of our cars when we were forced to get licenses!
every car was confiscated!
and then when they forced us to get wedding licenses our brides were all rounded up and taken away!
same thing will happen with guns!
If you don't know I'll tell you
You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.
Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?
Since driving is a privilege and not a right the state can require people to pass a basic competency test before being granted the privilege of driving. The drivers license is proof to law enforcement that you did indeed meet that requirement and have been granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.
I think we all know that licensing is a way to verifying that a person is qualified, capable and responsible enough to hold the legal power of driving a car. It’s done for public safety and law enforcement reasons. Same logic can be used for guns... but but I know, driving isn’t a right and gun ownership is... that’s Not the point!!!!
The state can place any stipulations it wants on drivers because it is not a right
There is no analogy that can adequately be used to compare a right to a privilege
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Driving is not a rightThere’s the knee jerk again, haha. I’m not talking about rights. I’m talking about cause and effect. You are shifting the argument. First you say that licensing/registration has no practical effects. And then when we point to areas where it has a practical effect you jump to the “Rights” argument. You can do better than that.Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.
If you don't know I'll tell you
You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.
Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?
Since driving is a privilege and not a right the state can require people to pass a basic competency test before being granted the privilege of driving. The drivers license is proof to law enforcement that you did indeed meet that requirement and have been granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.
I think we all know that licensing is a way to verifying that a person is qualified, capable and responsible enough to hold the legal power of driving a car. It’s done for public safety and law enforcement reasons. Same logic can be used for guns... but but I know, driving isn’t a right and gun ownership is... that’s Not the point!!!!
The state can place any stipulations it wants on drivers because it is not a right
There is no analogy that can adequately be used to compare a right to a privilege
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I'd be interested in hearing (reading) your list of RIGHTS V Privileges.
so far
RIGHTS
1. guns
PRIVILEGES
1. driving a car
so what else?
Driving is not a rightThere’s the knee jerk again, haha. I’m not talking about rights. I’m talking about cause and effect. You are shifting the argument. First you say that licensing/registration has no practical effects. And then when we point to areas where it has a practical effect you jump to the “Rights” argument. You can do better than that.Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?
Since driving is a privilege and not a right the state can require people to pass a basic competency test before being granted the privilege of driving. The drivers license is proof to law enforcement that you did indeed meet that requirement and have been granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.
I think we all know that licensing is a way to verifying that a person is qualified, capable and responsible enough to hold the legal power of driving a car. It’s done for public safety and law enforcement reasons. Same logic can be used for guns... but but I know, driving isn’t a right and gun ownership is... that’s Not the point!!!!
The state can place any stipulations it wants on drivers because it is not a right
There is no analogy that can adequately be used to compare a right to a privilege
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I'd be interested in hearing (reading) your list of RIGHTS V Privileges.
so far
RIGHTS
1. guns
PRIVILEGES
1. driving a car
so what else?
once you get a drivers license, you have the RIGHT to drive your car wherever and whenever you choose. You also have the RIGHT to apply for a drivers license, so this debate is linguistically meaningless.
What proves you wrong is the fact that millions, like over half of Americans according to polls, support gun control measures. These are people who are neither in government nor hoping for government to control them. They support it because they feel like it makes them safer so it would do you some good to try and listen with an open mind. You don’t need to agree but at least try and understand their perspective. That way you won’t keep misstating it and sounding like you don’t know what you’re talking about.t
Who said anything about being critical of government as a disqualifying factor?! You’re injecting that into the conversation.People who are deemed violent and or mentally unstableWho are the wrong hands?
Who gets to decide that?
Whatcha gonna do when big government decides YOU are the wrong hands?
If anyone actually had an accurate predictive way to know in advance whose hands would be truly wrong, we'd already be preventing 90% of all gun murders and would be able to re-institute automatic weapons while removing 90% of the gun laws off the books.
That is not at all legal.
That is what you expect in Russia, where anyone who is critical of the government is deemed violent or mentally unstable.
That not how law is supposed to work.
Anyone who is actually violent or mentally unstable should be involuntarily committed.
Preventing them from legally being able to buy a gun does nothing except corrupt the system.
A violent or mentally unstable person can still easily get a gun illegally, or flammables, poisons, explosives, large vehicles, etc.
What you suggest makes no sense, and it totally contrary to a democratic republic.
And what I say makes sense to millions who support gun control measures. Yes, some people will have contacts to get guns on the black market but others won’t and we need to have some safeguards in place so they can’t just walk into any old store and walk out with the power to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. Call me crazy if you must
That is silly.
Interjecting suppression of anything or anyone critical of government is EXACTLY what governments ALWAYS do!
Federal gun control is always a guaranteed means of suppressing any dissent, and being able to completely dominate and intimidate the entire population.
That is always the only point of any gun control, and always has been.
What you say your intent is makes no sense to anyone because they never actually thought about it.
They go by hysterical emotions that make no sense at all.
You are suggesting we try to disarm 100% of the non-government population, so that the criminal 0.1% can not just buy a gun from a gun store. And that clearly is ridiculous because the 0.1% who are criminals, already have their guns, and get all then need from drug traffickers from South America, Southeast Asia, the Balkans, etc.
All gun control laws do is disarm the honest people who we need and want to be armed, and all federal gun laws to is create a corrupt federal government that is not even supposed to be passing ANY weapons law at all.
You are crazy.
Obviously anyone too dangerous to allow to walk into a gun store to buy a gun, also can not be allowed in a fertilizer store to buy explosives, to buy gasoline, to buy poisons, etc.
Guns are likely the LEAST dangerous thing people could buy.
With something like ricin, which is easily obtained, one could not only kill thousands, but not even get caught.
It is clear you have NO understanding of technology, society, or common sense.
So it bares repeating, you are crazy is you support federal gun control in any way, shape, or form.
Driving is never a rightDriving is not a rightThere’s the knee jerk again, haha. I’m not talking about rights. I’m talking about cause and effect. You are shifting the argument. First you say that licensing/registration has no practical effects. And then when we point to areas where it has a practical effect you jump to the “Rights” argument. You can do better than that.Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?
Since driving is a privilege and not a right the state can require people to pass a basic competency test before being granted the privilege of driving. The drivers license is proof to law enforcement that you did indeed meet that requirement and have been granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.
I think we all know that licensing is a way to verifying that a person is qualified, capable and responsible enough to hold the legal power of driving a car. It’s done for public safety and law enforcement reasons. Same logic can be used for guns... but but I know, driving isn’t a right and gun ownership is... that’s Not the point!!!!
The state can place any stipulations it wants on drivers because it is not a right
There is no analogy that can adequately be used to compare a right to a privilege
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I'd be interested in hearing (reading) your list of RIGHTS V Privileges.
so far
RIGHTS
1. guns
PRIVILEGES
1. driving a car
so what else?
once you get a drivers license, you have the RIGHT to drive your car wherever and whenever you choose. You also have the RIGHT to apply for a drivers license, so this debate is linguistically meaningless.
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 carefulYour 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?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.The solution to the problem is NOT background checks. If anyone is asking, then I don't think they get it. the guys buying guns and killing people would pass the background check. Their warning signs are ignored and they have no "history" (having been minors) to check.
People are pissing in the wind on this one. If you're calling the cops on a kid continually; if they're being reported to police; being kicked out of school, then someone needs to get involved ASAP.
Go the child's home; interview the parents; interview the child; give the child an IQ test and a drug test. Determine where the problem is. Use the schools in the evening hours as places to teach parenting skills and one on one / group therapy for parents and children. SOLVE the problem while the kid is young.
BTW: The current method is to give a kid six minutes with a doctor and let them prescribe Ritalin or Adderall and then let the kid begin thinking the police and pills are their parents.
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.
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.
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 simpleYou’re right BG checks don’t stop those people. If you think they are useless would you call for eliminating BG checks all together? Let anybody buy any gun from anywhere that wants to sell them?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.The solution to the problem is NOT background checks. If anyone is asking, then I don't think they get it. the guys buying guns and killing people would pass the background check. Their warning signs are ignored and they have no "history" (having been minors) to check.
People are pissing in the wind on this one. If you're calling the cops on a kid continually; if they're being reported to police; being kicked out of school, then someone needs to get involved ASAP.
Go the child's home; interview the parents; interview the child; give the child an IQ test and a drug test. Determine where the problem is. Use the schools in the evening hours as places to teach parenting skills and one on one / group therapy for parents and children. SOLVE the problem while the kid is young.
BTW: The current method is to give a kid six minutes with a doctor and let them prescribe Ritalin or Adderall and then let the kid begin thinking the police and pills are their parents.
No, they aren't. The current checks don't stop criminals who simply steal their guns or use straw buyers who can pass any background check. Mass shooters can pass any background check or they too steal their guns....
Background checks are security theater......and the next step to gun registration, which you need to confiscate guns.
I definitely would allow people to buy firearms without all the B.S. and background checks.
When you have unstable people, it's usually when they are young. You can identify them, rehabilitate them and there would be no pretext for gun control.
Everybody seems to know how many people are killed by guns in every little shithole from Angola to Zimbabwe, but I'll bet that NONE of them know how other countries deal with unruly kids.
Here, we blame the kid, feed them pills, let the police parent them, and then bitch about it when the kid grows up to be a killer.
I completely agree with you. I think mental health care in schools should be a primary focus. Why don’t you think I get it?How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.Building bombs and molesting children are crimes. Somebody saying they are a white supremacist or saying they hate Mexicans on social media is not.
Regardless, in order to spy on anybody, you need a surveillance warrant to do that. Image how backlogged our courts would be with 20 million cases of accusations every year.
Then there is the fact that building bombs or molesting children are not constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is. That means the accused is allowed to have their day in court. You simply can't take away a constitutional right without a proper court hearing, and the ability of the accused to appeal decisions ruled against them.
But even if we had the ability to entertain all that, are you going to tell me that will stop all mass gun murders?
That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.
If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?
See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.
It’s all part of the big plan.
Get it?
What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.
We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.
I don't think people like YOU get it.
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.I literally just addressed the proof thing and now you’re asking again?!?! I give upI 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 scienceSo 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.
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.
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 completely agree with you. I think mental health care in schools should be a primary focus. Why don’t you think I get it?How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.
That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.
If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?
See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.
It’s all part of the big plan.
Get it?
What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.
We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.
I don't think people like YOU get it.
I don't think that mental health care is ultimately a solution.
I'm not opposed to it, just I see too much evidence that it won't really solve the problems.
How many mental patients had the medication for their condition, and still did the deed? Many. I can think of 3 different examples off the top of my head.
First we need to get back to inherent moral values. I believe it is directly tied to moral relativism, that people believe there..... is no right and wrong to their actions.
Why that's a shock to some on the left wing, I don't know.
Second, I think there is clear evidence that ties mental illness to drug use, and I personally believe that cutting drug use will reduce the mental problems in this country.
Lastly, I think we need to rebuild fundamental social fabric. That means getting rid of sub-groups, and hyphenated Americans. By that I mean, eliminating all the race based laws, where we promote minorities, which neither helps those minorities, and fans the flames of "us vs them".
You say what does that have to do
