Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Blues Man]

But making people get permits and licenses for their rights is OK if it's only gun rights ?

WHat's good for one right is good for all

You need to register to vote, do you not? You need an ID to register. You have regulations in speech depending on how and where you use it, right? Each of our “rights” is both protected and regulated as to protect the rights of others. That’s how it works.

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

So then if that's what registration is every time I buy a gun and show an ID to prove may age and address I am registering

So you are actually getting what you want right?

You seem to be having a hard time following... I didn’t bring up voting registration as an example of what we need to duplicate for guns. I brought it up as an example of how other rights are regulated after you acted like guns is the only right that we are wanting to regulate.

voting isn't regulated

anyone who is 18 can vote

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Incrementalism is the problem.

Slippery slope arguments are the problem.

That depends entirely on whether the slope is, in fact, slippery.

Pretty clear there is a huge slippery slope problem.
For example, the Bill of Rights is extremely clear there are to be no federal weapons laws at all.
And yet we have federal BATF and FBI assaulting women and children at Waco, murdering all of them, over a failure to pay a minor tax fee.
Ruby Ridge was even more clear, because Randy Weaver won in court, thus proving the FBI had violated the law.

lol

In your bizarre universe Congress must not exist at all.

 

[dblack]

Incrementalism is the problem.

Slippery slope arguments are the problem.

That depends entirely on whether the slope is, in fact, slippery.

Pretty clear there is a huge slippery slope problem.
For example, the Bill of Rights is extremely clear there are to be no federal weapons laws at all.
And yet we have federal BATF and FBI assaulting women and children at Waco, murdering all of them, over a failure to pay a minor tax fee.
Ruby Ridge was even more clear, because Randy Weaver won in court, thus proving the FBI had violated the law.

lol

In your bizarre universe Congress must not exist at all.

Congress doesn't have the power to override the Constitution via legislation. They must obey it or amend it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You need to register to vote, do you not? You need an ID to register. You have regulations in speech depending on how and where you use it, right? Each of our “rights” is both protected and regulated as to protect the rights of others. That’s how it works.

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

So then if that's what registration is every time I buy a gun and show an ID to prove may age and address I am registering

So you are actually getting what you want right?

You seem to be having a hard time following... I didn’t bring up voting registration as an example of what we need to duplicate for guns. I brought it up as an example of how other rights are regulated after you acted like guns is the only right that we are wanting to regulate.

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

And in your bizarre universe, the 15th and 19th Amendments don't exist.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

So then if that's what registration is every time I buy a gun and show an ID to prove may age and address I am registering

So you are actually getting what you want right?

You seem to be having a hard time following... I didn’t bring up voting registration as an example of what we need to duplicate for guns. I brought it up as an example of how other rights are regulated after you acted like guns is the only right that we are wanting to regulate.

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

And in your bizarre universe, the 15th and 19th Amendments don't exist.

They make a presumption; they do not state anything positive. You should access the links so you don't look like an uneducated clown.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't even mind the abstraction of universal background checks, but I do mind the federal government doing it, and only allowing FFLs request them.
They they want universal background checks, then anyone and every one must be able to request one themselves, instead of paying an FFL to do it for them.

The guy that shot six cops in PA was a felon, and from what I heard on the radio the other day, a rap sheet a mile long, yet he had access to all kinds of weapons obviously. There is no way he could have purchased his weapons from a licensed dealer and passed a background check.

This happens all the time unfortunately. I think if you are a felon that uses an illegal firearm in the act of a crime, it should automatically be a life sentence with no parole.

Yes, life should have enough justice and opportunity so that anyone fatally abusing others should just be executed or life incarceration.
But the problem now is that there is no justice or opportunity for the poor, and crime then is not the fault of the criminal.
It is only ok to be draconian when one can be sure it is deserved.
And right now I tend to blame the police, government, corporate interests, corrupt politicians, etc. more than the criminals.

And I blame the individual.

Poverty is a cheap excuse. There are plenty of people in poverty that don't have to break laws or hurt people to live life in America. In fact I would say most don't. You need to graduate high school, you need to stay away from heavy expenses like having children before you can afford them, you need to stay away from drugs, and you need the best paying job you are able to get.

This can be accomplished by most any American at any income level. The exceptions of course are physical or mental disabilities, but not poverty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't even mind the abstraction of universal background checks, but I do mind the federal government doing it, and only allowing FFLs request them.
They they want universal background checks, then anyone and every one must be able to request one themselves, instead of paying an FFL to do it for them.

The guy that shot six cops in PA was a felon, and from what I heard on the radio the other day, a rap sheet a mile long, yet he had access to all kinds of weapons obviously. There is no way he could have purchased his weapons from a licensed dealer and passed a background check.

This happens all the time unfortunately. I think if you are a felon that uses an illegal firearm in the act of a crime, it should automatically be a life sentence with no parole.

He easily could have gone one state over and purchased the weapon without even an ID much less a background check from a private person or a gun show. While HE might be illegal in making the purchase, the person selling it would be making a legal sale. Now, let's go one step further. The person that provided that gun should also get the automatic life sentence as well but will get off scott free.

That depends. If it's a simple sale between two strangers, it's not the sellers responsibility to make sure he's not selling to a felon, it's the felons responsibility to make sure he doesn't buy or own firearms.

However in cases where it's a friend or family member knowing the history of the person they are buying the firearm for, the book should be thrown at them, especially if a crime is committed with that gun.

 

[Slade3200]

You need to register to vote, do you not? You need an ID to register. You have regulations in speech depending on how and where you use it, right? Each of our “rights” is both protected and regulated as to protect the rights of others. That’s how it works.

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

So then if that's what registration is every time I buy a gun and show an ID to prove may age and address I am registering

So you are actually getting what you want right?

You seem to be having a hard time following... I didn’t bring up voting registration as an example of what we need to duplicate for guns. I brought it up as an example of how other rights are regulated after you acted like guns is the only right that we are wanting to regulate.

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Anyone who wants to learn gun safety can take some of excellent courses offered by the NRA

MAybe we should force everyone to take gun safety courses

There ya go... kinda like getting a drivers license huh?

But I was being facetious

I guess I need a sarcasm sign when dealing with you

You have better ideas when you’re sarcastic

Sure then we can apply that to every right and require people pay licensing fees too

Didn't take your 4th amendment and pay the fee for the 4th amendment permit?

Tough shit now the cops and search your home without a warrant

We do apply regulations to other rights when it has potential impacts on the general public. You need a permit to protest, right?. You need permission to advertise in certain areas and your content needs to fit guidelines, does it not?

We can say whatever the fuck we want in our own home, right?

Let us have whatever weapons we want, including belt-fed machine guns, in our own home. Not in public.



.

 

[Slade3200]

Whatever you say

So you think getting one out of 1000 is preventing crime in general?

Are you high?

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

 

[Slade3200]

You need to register to vote, do you not? You need an ID to register. You have regulations in speech depending on how and where you use it, right? Each of our “rights” is both protected and regulated as to protect the rights of others. That’s how it works.

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

Voter registration does not require a license, passport or anything at all like that.
They send you voter registration card in the mail.
The main goal is to verify your address.
It is illegal in the US to require an ID, like a license or passport.

And gun control is nothing like that, because first of all it is federal, distant, banned by the Constitution, and pushed by those who have already admitted they want total confiscation of all private firearms.

How do they get your address? Regardless it is a registration process.

You have to send in a voter registration form in order for them to get your address to mail back to, but that is not very significant.
You ignored the important parts, which is that any gun control or regulations it prohibited from the federal government by the Bill of Rights.
And while it is fine for your address be used for voter registration, it is not fine for government to have the address of all the guns in the country. Government can be better than criminals or foreign invaders, but government do also have a long history of being abusive themselves. No one should want any government to have too much power or private information.

Why is it ok to have your address to vote and not for guns?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you think getting one out of 1000 is preventing crime in general?

Are you high?

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

You have to live by some of the stupidest rules.

No fucking thank you.

Keep that shit out of Texas.

.

 

[Slade3200]

Whatever you say

So you think getting one out of 1000 is preventing crime in general?

Are you high?

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

You are assuming that every time a straw buyer is caught that a life is saved?

There is no evidence of that

I’m not assuming that. I never said every time. That’s a fake argument

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you think getting one out of 1000 is preventing crime in general?

Are you high?

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

If you are not promoting taking guns away from responsible people, then why would you be taking about any additional federal firearms laws, when clearly there already are way too many?
We know what the causes of crime, suicide, mass murder, etc., are, and weapons accessibility is definitely NOT one of them.

If you do not want to take guns from responsible people, then you would be against all federal firearm laws, not just because the federal government is supposed to be denied jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights, but because it is distant, arrogant, and generally abusive.

When there is an increase in senseless violence like mass murders, suicides, etc., there is definitely serious things wrong. Attempts to suppress the symptoms, so that the serious problems are not addressed and ignored instead, would be criminally irresponsible. One would only do that by more gun control, if the problems with society were deliberate and the intent was to make them even worse.

Look at some of California's approach to firearms. They made the SKS illegal, even though it is only a 10 shot internal magazine. Clearly the ONLY reason for singling out the benign SKS is that it was selling for only $88. So then the motivation by the state of California has to be to deliberately discriminate against poor people. There can be no other motive.

Banning certain guns is not taking guns away. You can still get guns. Having regulations to make sure we are selling guns to responsible people is not taking guns away from responsible people. I don’t get what your problem is. I live in California. I have a dozen guns. Almost all my friends have guns. It’s really not a big deal

Maybe you do, but would you ever want to be in a position of self-defense using a gun in California? I sure as hell wouldn't.

In my state I wouldn't think twice because we are a very gun-friendly state. The laws are written to protect us and against the criminal. As should be all across the country, the victim is given the assumption of innocence until a prosecutor proves him or her wrong.

 

[Slade3200]

There ya go... kinda like getting a drivers license huh?

But I was being facetious

I guess I need a sarcasm sign when dealing with you

You have better ideas when you’re sarcastic

Sure then we can apply that to every right and require people pay licensing fees too

Didn't take your 4th amendment and pay the fee for the 4th amendment permit?

Tough shit now the cops and search your home without a warrant

We do apply regulations to other rights when it has potential impacts on the general public. You need a permit to protest, right?. You need permission to advertise in certain areas and your content needs to fit guidelines, does it not?

We can say whatever the fuck we want in our own home, right?

Let us have whatever weapons we want, including belt-fed machine guns, in our own home. Not in public.



.

I’d vote no to that. Sorry

 

[Porter Rockwell]

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

So then if that's what registration is every time I buy a gun and show an ID to prove may age and address I am registering

So you are actually getting what you want right?

You seem to be having a hard time following... I didn’t bring up voting registration as an example of what we need to duplicate for guns. I brought it up as an example of how other rights are regulated after you acted like guns is the only right that we are wanting to regulate.

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

So then if that's what registration is every time I buy a gun and show an ID to prove may age and address I am registering

So you are actually getting what you want right?

You seem to be having a hard time following... I didn’t bring up voting registration as an example of what we need to duplicate for guns. I brought it up as an example of how other rights are regulated after you acted like guns is the only right that we are wanting to regulate.

There is no right to vote.

Americans Don’t Have a Constitutional Right to Vote — Is It Time for a Change?

There Is No Right To Vote | Current Affairs

Keep running with that one! Haha

Did you bother to access the links?

 

[Rigby5]

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

Voter registration does not require a license, passport or anything at all like that.
They send you voter registration card in the mail.
The main goal is to verify your address.
It is illegal in the US to require an ID, like a license or passport.

And gun control is nothing like that, because first of all it is federal, distant, banned by the Constitution, and pushed by those who have already admitted they want total confiscation of all private firearms.

How do they get your address? Regardless it is a registration process.

You have to send in a voter registration form in order for them to get your address to mail back to, but that is not very significant.
You ignored the important parts, which is that any gun control or regulations it prohibited from the federal government by the Bill of Rights.
And while it is fine for your address be used for voter registration, it is not fine for government to have the address of all the guns in the country. Government can be better than criminals or foreign invaders, but government do also have a long history of being abusive themselves. No one should want any government to have too much power or private information.

Why is it ok to have your address to vote and not for guns?

Obviously the difference is that no one is going to come knocking in the middle of the night, to confiscate your vote.
But all governments become corrupt eventually, and they all do eventually try to confiscate guns,
In fact, that already happened in California, where they tried to confiscate benign guns like the SKS.

 

[Rigby5]

So you think getting one out of 1000 is preventing crime in general?

Are you high?

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

You are assuming that every time a straw buyer is caught that a life is saved?

There is no evidence of that

I’m not assuming that. I never said every time. That’s a fake argument

But the facts are that straw purchase/sales are very hard to convict because the person guilty can just claim it was a theft, so they usually get off. That means only about 1 of 1000 get convicted. But the number of convictions really has no correlation to lives saved. The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns are not shooting people. They more likely are using them to just intimidate, either to defend drug turf, at a robbery where not shots are fired, etc. It likely is wrong to imply that laws actually save any lives. People are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of what laws exist.

Do you think regulations like licensing and traffic laws along with highway patrol save lives on the road?

Again that is an absurd and very stupid comment.
The vast majority of the people are honest, but they will still have traffic accidents.
It is not criminals intent on harm that cause car accidents, but simply the fact driving is VERY difficult.
So of course you need licensing, training, laws, etc., for traffic.
But that has nothing at all to do with gun laws, which supposedly are only to catch criminals, while in actuality only harming honest people.
So traffic laws, licensing, and regulations clearly are necessary and save lives, while gun laws only cause harm, and do absolutely no good at all.

 

[Rigby5]

Incrementalism is the problem.

Slippery slope arguments are the problem.

That depends entirely on whether the slope is, in fact, slippery.

Pretty clear there is a huge slippery slope problem.
For example, the Bill of Rights is extremely clear there are to be no federal weapons laws at all.
And yet we have federal BATF and FBI assaulting women and children at Waco, murdering all of them, over a failure to pay a minor tax fee.
Ruby Ridge was even more clear, because Randy Weaver won in court, thus proving the FBI had violated the law.

lol

In your bizarre universe Congress must not exist at all.

That is silly because Congress is almost always the fault of all government problems, like slippery slopes, illegal gun legislation, the illegal War on Drugs, the illegal invasion of Iraq, the illegal torture of POWs at Guantanamo, the illegal war crimes of targeting civilians with Shock and Awe, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't even mind the abstraction of universal background checks, but I do mind the federal government doing it, and only allowing FFLs request them.
They they want universal background checks, then anyone and every one must be able to request one themselves, instead of paying an FFL to do it for them.

The guy that shot six cops in PA was a felon, and from what I heard on the radio the other day, a rap sheet a mile long, yet he had access to all kinds of weapons obviously. There is no way he could have purchased his weapons from a licensed dealer and passed a background check.

This happens all the time unfortunately. I think if you are a felon that uses an illegal firearm in the act of a crime, it should automatically be a life sentence with no parole.

Yes, life should have enough justice and opportunity so that anyone fatally abusing others should just be executed or life incarceration.
But the problem now is that there is no justice or opportunity for the poor, and crime then is not the fault of the criminal.
It is only ok to be draconian when one can be sure it is deserved.
And right now I tend to blame the police, government, corporate interests, corrupt politicians, etc. more than the criminals.

And I blame the individual.

Poverty is a cheap excuse. There are plenty of people in poverty that don't have to break laws or hurt people to live life in America. In fact I would say most don't. You need to graduate high school, you need to stay away from heavy expenses like having children before you can afford them, you need to stay away from drugs, and you need the best paying job you are able to get.

This can be accomplished by most any American at any income level. The exceptions of course are physical or mental disabilities, but not poverty.

I am not talking about poverty, even though poverty is often the main cause of crime.
I am talking about injustice, which I think is not only the current main cause of crime, but is what makes crime justified right now.
For example, around 1957, laws were passed to allow employers to give tax exempt employee benefits.
That resulted in the wealthy all getting free health insurance, while essentially the poor that got no such benefits, had their taxes increased to subsidize that.
That is only one of the first of thousands of unfair an unjust legislative abuses of poor people.
The War on Drugs has harmed tens of millions of mostly poor or Black, and denied them of years of their lives, good job, the ability to vote, etc.
It really is almost to the point where crime is becoming responsible, as an act of rebellion against a very broken system.