Honest and open debate on gun control

[jon_berzerk]

There are zero /new/ gun control laws that would not infringe upon the 2nd.

Frankly, it's going to shortly be an absolutely moot point - 3D printed firearms - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

--LOL

hillary claims that she is going to make it an issue

in her campaign

--LOL

indeed i certainly hope so

 

[2aguy]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

the dad is only guilty of his own crime

giving a firearm to a person with pending felony charges

 

[2aguy]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

They also should have known him to be a psycho.

Really....when trained professionals miss these guys all the time...? The untrained, people in the middle of a family situation with a loved one should know how to diagnose a threat level.....really?

If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime.

Did you think this one thru.....so you have a criminal break into your home and steal your property....your guns, and commits a crime with them...you didn't commit the crime and in fact are a victim of a crime...but now you are held responsible.....care to rethink that?

or stole his car

and robbed a bank

should freewill do the time

Cars are not used usually used to kill folks. But I would say if you leave your keys in the car.....well a person doing so just ain't that smart. I am really at a lost to understand your problem with a person having to control their guns.

We are fully on board with controlling our guns....neither one of the points you made addresses that....you brought up someone stealing a gun....you have no control over that if you don't just leave them on your front lawn, or having to know that your kid is actually going to go and murder innocent people.....

that isn't controlling your gun, that is blaming gun owners so that you can punish them for the act of wanting to own guns......

 

[2aguy]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

of course the same as any other straw purchaser

it is reasonable to expect that dad would know his kid is under federal charges

If the dad knew he was under charges, but not convicted do you know he knew that that meant 1) That the law made it illegal to own a gun, and that assumes the dad gave the gun to the kid, which at this point is not a fact and 2) that he gave the gun to the kid and not just gave him money....which he may have done because he knew his son was living on the floor of a trailer of one of his friends......?

 

[Freewill]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

Where did I say a word about grabbing guns? Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.

 

[2aguy]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

Where did I say a word about grabbing guns? Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.

Your post leads to it.......if someone is responsible for how a criminal uses property that is stolen you are going to scare people away from owning guns....

The anti gun extremists will use whatever they have to to scare normal, law abiding people from buying and owning guns, that is why they want ever more complex laws to scoop up innocent people who are not aware of all the little laws that go into owning and transferring or selling guns......

 

[Freewill]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

of course the same as any other straw purchaser

it is reasonable to expect that dad would know his kid is under federal charges

If the dad knew he was under charges, but not convicted do you know he knew that that meant 1) That the law made it illegal to own a gun, and that assumes the dad gave the gun to the kid, which at this point is not a fact and 2) that he gave the gun to the kid and not just gave him money....which he may have done because he knew his son was living on the floor of a trailer of one of his friends......?

I have no real idea what the dad knew but what we do know is that the kid showed a whole lot of signs of not playing with a full deck. It is not like he was a alter boy and then just went on a murderous rampage. Some how, some way we should at least TRY to stop these idiots from getting guns. And stopping them does not stop you. The only real way of ever doing so is make someone responsible.

 

[Freewill]

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

Where did I say a word about grabbing guns? Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.

Your post leads to it.......if someone is responsible for how a criminal uses property that is stolen you are going to scare people away from owning guns....

The anti gun extremists will use whatever they have to to scare normal, law abiding people from buying and owning guns, that is why they want ever more complex laws to scoop up innocent people who are not aware of all the little laws that go into owning and transferring or selling guns......

Yep, scare those who are not sure they are responsible enough to control their guns. Have a friend who owned a lot of guns and was not shy about telling people about his guns and what he would do if someone tried to steal them. All his guns were stolen. Now they are out there ready to do harm, because that is in reality is the only function of a gun.

 

[2aguy]

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

of course the same as any other straw purchaser

it is reasonable to expect that dad would know his kid is under federal charges

If the dad knew he was under charges, but not convicted do you know he knew that that meant 1) That the law made it illegal to own a gun, and that assumes the dad gave the gun to the kid, which at this point is not a fact and 2) that he gave the gun to the kid and not just gave him money....which he may have done because he knew his son was living on the floor of a trailer of one of his friends......?

I have no real idea what the dad knew but what we do know is that the kid showed a whole lot of signs of not playing with a full deck. It is not like he was a alter boy and then just went on a murderous rampage. Some how, some way we should at least TRY to stop these idiots from getting guns. And stopping them does not stop you. The only real way of ever doing so is make someone responsible.

I agree....but we have to be very careful. Anti gun extremists will use mental health information on background checks as an excuse to keep normal, law abiding gun owners from keeping their guns. And not all shooters show signs of violence before they go on the attack. The gun grabbers will use any leeway to keep anyone who has seen a grief counselor, a school psychiatrist or any number of other regular mental health professionals to designate normal people unfit to own weapons, it is the way they think and a tactic they will use.

 

[2aguy]

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

Where did I say a word about grabbing guns? Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.

Your post leads to it.......if someone is responsible for how a criminal uses property that is stolen you are going to scare people away from owning guns....

The anti gun extremists will use whatever they have to to scare normal, law abiding people from buying and owning guns, that is why they want ever more complex laws to scoop up innocent people who are not aware of all the little laws that go into owning and transferring or selling guns......

Yep, scare those who are not sure they are responsible enough to control their guns. Have a friend who owned a lot of guns and was not shy about telling people about his guns and what he would do if someone tried to steal them. All his guns were stolen. Now they are out there ready to do harm, because that is in reality is the only function of a gun.

No, the function of a gun is to save the life of the user, and often it doesn't even have to be fired to do that. And how is your friend responsible again? His guns were stolen...right? Did he have them on his own private property, in his own home....or did he just leave them lying in the middle of the street?

 

[Freewill]

1. Make people responsible for their guns. As in the Charleston shooting, it is my opinion that the family knew what he was doing with the money they gave him. They also should have known him to be a psycho. Make them feel some responsibility for the tragedy they helped bring upon us all. If you gun is stolen and used in a crime, you accept responsibility for that crime. If someone underage is found with you gun and is not in you company, then you have committed a crime, hunting being an exception. This is just off the top of my head but all I am saying is gun control starts with the owner.

2. You can still own a gun but you damn well better control it.

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

Where did I say a word about grabbing guns? Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.

Your post leads to it.......if someone is responsible for how a criminal uses property that is stolen you are going to scare people away from owning guns....

The anti gun extremists will use whatever they have to to scare normal, law abiding people from buying and owning guns, that is why they want ever more complex laws to scoop up innocent people who are not aware of all the little laws that go into owning and transferring or selling guns......

What reaction do you think people should have to situations like Charleston, school shooting, the shooting in the movie theater, or any of the other seemingly random acts of murder using at least handguns? Such awful needless loss of innocent life and you expect people to shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing they can do? What do you suggest be done? And saying arming everyone is not, in my opinion an answer, because, believe it or not most people, in my opinion don't have what it takes to kill someone. Worse yet they may lack the ability.

So you name something you would do, which could be do nothing because you don't see a problem. What I suggested both allows you to own a gun and puts the ownership and responsibility for that gun on the proper person, the owner.

 

[Freewill]

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

Where did I say a word about grabbing guns? Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.

Your post leads to it.......if someone is responsible for how a criminal uses property that is stolen you are going to scare people away from owning guns....

The anti gun extremists will use whatever they have to to scare normal, law abiding people from buying and owning guns, that is why they want ever more complex laws to scoop up innocent people who are not aware of all the little laws that go into owning and transferring or selling guns......

Yep, scare those who are not sure they are responsible enough to control their guns. Have a friend who owned a lot of guns and was not shy about telling people about his guns and what he would do if someone tried to steal them. All his guns were stolen. Now they are out there ready to do harm, because that is in reality is the only function of a gun.

No, the function of a gun is to save the life of the user, and often it doesn't even have to be fired to do that. And how is your friend responsible again? His guns were stolen...right? Did he have them on his own private property, in his own home....or did he just leave them lying in the middle of the street?

What if my friend would have just given a felon a gun, would you think him any way responsible for what happens with that gun?

What if he left the gun out on his porch and it was stolen?

What if he just had them stock piled in his house?

Where is the line drawn? The easiest place is, you bought it you own it.

 

[Freewill]

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

Where did I say a word about grabbing guns? Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.

Your post leads to it.......if someone is responsible for how a criminal uses property that is stolen you are going to scare people away from owning guns....

The anti gun extremists will use whatever they have to to scare normal, law abiding people from buying and owning guns, that is why they want ever more complex laws to scoop up innocent people who are not aware of all the little laws that go into owning and transferring or selling guns......

Yep, scare those who are not sure they are responsible enough to control their guns. Have a friend who owned a lot of guns and was not shy about telling people about his guns and what he would do if someone tried to steal them. All his guns were stolen. Now they are out there ready to do harm, because that is in reality is the only function of a gun.

No, the function of a gun is to save the life of the user, and often it doesn't even have to be fired to do that. And how is your friend responsible again? His guns were stolen...right? Did he have them on his own private property, in his own home....or did he just leave them lying in the middle of the street?

If you are going to discuss this then let us be honest. Whether a gun is used to "save a life" by taking another life or used to commit a crime the function still is to do damage. It serves no other purpose. The only way a gun can be used for protection without actually using it is to convince the target that you are willing to shoot them. Otherwise you might as well be holding a carrot.

 

[2aguy]

the shooter broke state laws having a firearm

his dad gave him that pistol also breaking the law

Roof had pending felony charges making it illegal for him to have a firearm

Then you agree, the Dad is at least partially responsible.

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

Where did I say a word about grabbing guns? Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.

Your post leads to it.......if someone is responsible for how a criminal uses property that is stolen you are going to scare people away from owning guns....

The anti gun extremists will use whatever they have to to scare normal, law abiding people from buying and owning guns, that is why they want ever more complex laws to scoop up innocent people who are not aware of all the little laws that go into owning and transferring or selling guns......

What reaction do you think people should have to situations like Charleston, school shooting, the shooting in the movie theater, or any of the other seemingly random acts of murder using at least handguns? Such awful needless loss of innocent life and you expect people to shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing they can do? What do you suggest be done? And saying arming everyone is not, in my opinion an answer, because, believe it or not most people, in my opinion don't have what it takes to kill someone. Worse yet they may lack the ability.

So you name something you would do, which could be do nothing because you don't see a problem. What I suggested both allows you to own a gun and puts the ownership and responsibility for that gun on the proper person, the owner.

No the responsilbility for a gun used in a crime is the person who used the gun in a crime....

What would I do? I would increase sentences for people who use guns to commit crimes or felons caught in possession of a gun. We have too many cases of criminals with histories of violence and weapons getting short sentences, coming out and murdering people. We have had that repeatedly, and prosecutors use weapons charges as bargaining chips and too easlily divert weapons offenses committed by violent career criminals into "boot camps" and short prison time.

I would repeal gun free zones. It has been shown that these criminals target areas where they know the people will be disarmed. There are several cases of these guys stating in pre shooting diaries of how they made their choice. Allowing people to carry their weapons with them will create an unknown for these shooters and will add an element of protection to those areas.

I would increase the jail time for anyone who knowingly PURCHASES a gun when they are a convicted criminal or otherewise can't legally own a gun...that way you don't scoop up or target innocent people who are unfamiliar with gun laws......and you actually punish the one person who knows for sure they can't own a gun.

Straw purchasing is already illegal...and if someone wants you to buy a gun for them because they can't......you pretty much know you are breaking the law....but selling a gun to someone.....not the crime the anti gun extremists want it to be.....arrest and jail the guy who buys the gun knowing he can't.....

 

[EverCurious]

There are zero /new/ gun control laws that would not infringe upon the 2nd.

Frankly, it's going to shortly be an absolutely moot point - 3D printed firearms - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

--LOL

hillary claims that she is going to make it an issue

in her campaign

--LOL

indeed i certainly hope so

Laugh all you want, but the reality is that the /only/ way for the government to prevent 3D firearms is to completely restrict /all/ internet in the US (and abroad for those who travel) And if you look into software piracy you'll see just how difficult it is to stop - you wonder why MS Windows has authorization and shit, that's why.

You could repeal the 2nd and remove all guns from the country, but if you think gangs, drug dealers, and other criminals are not going to spend the money on a 3D printer to print their own arms in that case you're not facing reality. They expect the price of 3D printers to be in range of even the middle class within a couple years, if not sooner. EVEN if we don't pass any gun control arms, these fuckers are going to be doing it - we have laws on the books regulating 3d printing of firearms already (have to put a plate in it so it's metal detector visible) but the gov knows that's not going to cut it. I think it's part of why they passed that internet gun discussion shit not to long ago; the one that prevents you from "sharing" manufacturing techniques online. Not that it'll stop them, some fucker out there will virtually construct one and sell the plans on the pirate underground for billions.

The guy in Japan already did it, maybe we should collaborate with them as to how they are thinking to prevent it from happening again and see if there's a way we can fit that idea into our laws (unlikely considering Japan pretty much makes you give your SSN to use the internet heh)

 

[2aguy]

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

Where did I say a word about grabbing guns? Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.

Your post leads to it.......if someone is responsible for how a criminal uses property that is stolen you are going to scare people away from owning guns....

The anti gun extremists will use whatever they have to to scare normal, law abiding people from buying and owning guns, that is why they want ever more complex laws to scoop up innocent people who are not aware of all the little laws that go into owning and transferring or selling guns......

Yep, scare those who are not sure they are responsible enough to control their guns. Have a friend who owned a lot of guns and was not shy about telling people about his guns and what he would do if someone tried to steal them. All his guns were stolen. Now they are out there ready to do harm, because that is in reality is the only function of a gun.

No, the function of a gun is to save the life of the user, and often it doesn't even have to be fired to do that. And how is your friend responsible again? His guns were stolen...right? Did he have them on his own private property, in his own home....or did he just leave them lying in the middle of the street?

What if my friend would have just given a felon a gun, would you think him any way responsible for what happens with that gun?

What if he left the gun out on his porch and it was stolen?

What if he just had them stock piled in his house?

Where is the line drawn? The easiest place is, you bought it you own it.

If he knew the guy was a felon...yes...that is against the law...I just posted about my approach on this...the felon knew...so we punish him...a lot.......

If the gun is left on the porch...I might be able to work with you here.....but if a criminal takes it, again, they know they can't own it or possess it right now......

Stock piled in his house....who cares....it is his private property...guns stores are robbed all the time.

the easiest place is not you bought it you own it....that punishes the law abiding and ignores the criminal defeating your whole point...

 

[2aguy]

Actually, no. You would have to show that the kid's intention to commit violence was known to the family, minus that, giving his kid money and then the kid buying a gun with it is not the families fault. The kid was living in a trailer with friends, unless you can prove they knew he would spend it on a gun to commit murder, they could very easily have given that money to help him support himself.........

But.....why let the law interfere with some good gun grabbing.........

Where did I say a word about grabbing guns? Buy all the guns you want, just show some gun control and be responsible for them.

Your post leads to it.......if someone is responsible for how a criminal uses property that is stolen you are going to scare people away from owning guns....

The anti gun extremists will use whatever they have to to scare normal, law abiding people from buying and owning guns, that is why they want ever more complex laws to scoop up innocent people who are not aware of all the little laws that go into owning and transferring or selling guns......

Yep, scare those who are not sure they are responsible enough to control their guns. Have a friend who owned a lot of guns and was not shy about telling people about his guns and what he would do if someone tried to steal them. All his guns were stolen. Now they are out there ready to do harm, because that is in reality is the only function of a gun.

No, the function of a gun is to save the life of the user, and often it doesn't even have to be fired to do that. And how is your friend responsible again? His guns were stolen...right? Did he have them on his own private property, in his own home....or did he just leave them lying in the middle of the street?

If you are going to discuss this then let us be honest. Whether a gun is used to "save a life" by taking another life or used to commit a crime the function still is to do damage. It serves no other purpose. The only way a gun can be used for protection without actually using it is to convince the target that you are willing to shoot them. Otherwise you might as well be holding a carrot.

but the purpose is to keep the owner safe. Again, it doesn't need to actually be fired to do that does it...since most self defense encounters end with the criminal running away or being held by the victim for police.....and even when it is fired, most of the time the criminal is just injured and not killed. So you are wrong on that point.

And it has many uses besides self defense.....competition and hunting are very popular.....

 

[2aguy]

There are zero /new/ gun control laws that would not infringe upon the 2nd.

Frankly, it's going to shortly be an absolutely moot point - 3D printed firearms - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

--LOL

hillary claims that she is going to make it an issue

in her campaign

--LOL

indeed i certainly hope so

Laugh all you want, but the reality is that the /only/ way for the government to prevent 3D firearms is to completely restrict /all/ internet in the US (and abroad for those who travel) And if you look into software piracy you'll see just how difficult it is to stop - you wonder why MS Windows has authorization and shit, that's why.

You could repeal the 2nd and remove all guns from the country, but if you think gangs, drug dealers, and other criminals are not going to spend the money on a 3D printer to print their own arms in that case you're not facing reality. They expect the price of 3D printers to be in range of even the middle class within a couple years, if not sooner. EVEN if we don't pass any gun control arms, these fuckers are going to be doing it - we have laws on the books regulating 3d printing of firearms already (have to put a plate in it so it's metal detector visible) but the gov knows that's not going to cut it. I think it's part of why they passed that internet gun discussion shit not to long ago; the one that prevents you from "sharing" manufacturing techniques online. Not that it'll stop them, some fucker out there will virtually construct one and sell the plans on the pirate underground for billions.

The guy in Japan already did it, maybe we should collaborate with them as to how they are thinking to prevent it from happening again and see if there's a way we can fit that idea into our laws (unlikely considering Japan pretty much makes you give your SSN to use the internet heh)

The really big growth sector for 3d guns.....once again...criminals...and the government can't stop them now.....how will they stop 3d printing gun builders for criminal and terrorist organizations?

 

[2aguy]

There are zero /new/ gun control laws that would not infringe upon the 2nd.

Frankly, it's going to shortly be an absolutely moot point - 3D printed firearms - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

--LOL

hillary claims that she is going to make it an issue

in her campaign

--LOL

indeed i certainly hope so

Laugh all you want, but the reality is that the /only/ way for the government to prevent 3D firearms is to completely restrict /all/ internet in the US (and abroad for those who travel) And if you look into software piracy you'll see just how difficult it is to stop - you wonder why MS Windows has authorization and shit, that's why.

You could repeal the 2nd and remove all guns from the country, but if you think gangs, drug dealers, and other criminals are not going to spend the money on a 3D printer to print their own arms in that case you're not facing reality. They expect the price of 3D printers to be in range of even the middle class within a couple years, if not sooner. EVEN if we don't pass any gun control arms, these fuckers are going to be doing it - we have laws on the books regulating 3d printing of firearms already (have to put a plate in it so it's metal detector visible) but the gov knows that's not going to cut it. I think it's part of why they passed that internet gun discussion shit not to long ago; the one that prevents you from "sharing" manufacturing techniques online. Not that it'll stop them, some fucker out there will virtually construct one and sell the plans on the pirate underground for billions.

The guy in Japan already did it, maybe we should collaborate with them as to how they are thinking to prevent it from happening again and see if there's a way we can fit that idea into our laws (unlikely considering Japan pretty much makes you give your SSN to use the internet heh)

They will never ever be able to stop criminals from getting guns....but....they can keep law abiding people from owning guns by passing laws......and that is why they target the law abiding.....