Honest and open debate on gun control

[westwall]

Mine does.

Only partially, as it is voluntary.
It certainly does not prevent criminals from buying guns from people who won't run a check, or stealing guns or whatever.

This is one way to do it that doesn't infringe on anyone rights, and does not generate a national gun registry.
Capisce?

Like I said -- I have no issue with people voluntary running background checks on a private sale - I only stated that there is some capacity to do this already.

No, there isn't. That's the whole point I'm making. Criminals WON'T go to a gun store to do a background check

This means you didn't sell the gun to the crimnal, right? Success!

Here I am giving you a method to do what you say and you're resisting it. Why?

I did not disagree with your idea.

Further, I would have no problem with the background check being mandatory, so long as it was free and no gun registration was included.

The only way the requirement for universal background checks can be enforced is thru universal registration.
Further, even with universal checks, criminals will still get guns.

Untrue. There is NO REASON for gun registration to be a part of any background check legislation. None. Government has no right knowing what we have. I do wish to USE the government to tell me who is legally allowed to purchase a firearm however.

See the difference?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Only partially, as it is voluntary.
It certainly does not prevent criminals from buying guns from people who won't run a check, or stealing guns or whatever.

This is one way to do it that doesn't infringe on anyone rights, and does not generate a national gun registry.
Capisce?

Like I said -- I have no issue with people voluntary running background checks on a private sale - I only stated that there is some capacity to do this already.

No, there isn't. That's the whole point I'm making. Criminals WON'T go to a gun store to do a background check

This means you didn't sell the gun to the crimnal, right? Success!

Here I am giving you a method to do what you say and you're resisting it. Why?

I did not disagree with your idea.

Further, I would have no problem with the background check being mandatory, so long as it was free and no gun registration was included.

The only way the requirement for universal background checks can be enforced is thru universal registration.
Further, even with universal checks, criminals will still get guns.

Untrue. There is NO REASON for gun registration to be a part of any background check legislation.

Universal registration is the only way the government can prove that a privately-sold gun was sold at a time when the background check was supposed to take place -- that is, the only way the government can enforce the law. If the government cannot enforce the law, then the law is useless and the restriction it places on the right to arms cannot stand up to any level of scrutiny.

Government has no right knowing what we have

Of course -- gun registration clearly violates the constitution.

I do wish to USE the government to tell me who is legally allowed to purchase a firearm however.

Of course. Maybe post names on the internet.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Of course -- gun registration clearly violates the constitution.

Only it doesn't!

The founding fathers passed gun registration shortly after the nation was established.

But there doesn't need to be any gun registration if you reintroduce the draft.

Then you have everyone registered and you have their fingerprints and DNA on file. You can do mental evaluations and have them repeated every 2 years.

The draft will eliminate many of the firearm accidents since there will be a consistent level of training nationwide.

The draft will also provide a recruiting tool for the military and other agencies.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

ok...

How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

 

[westwall]

This is one way to do it that doesn't infringe on anyone rights, and does not generate a national gun registry.
Capisce?

Like I said -- I have no issue with people voluntary running background checks on a private sale - I only stated that there is some capacity to do this already.

No, there isn't. That's the whole point I'm making. Criminals WON'T go to a gun store to do a background check

This means you didn't sell the gun to the crimnal, right? Success!

Here I am giving you a method to do what you say and you're resisting it. Why?

I did not disagree with your idea.

Further, I would have no problem with the background check being mandatory, so long as it was free and no gun registration was included.

The only way the requirement for universal background checks can be enforced is thru universal registration.
Further, even with universal checks, criminals will still get guns.

Untrue. There is NO REASON for gun registration to be a part of any background check legislation.

Universal registration is the only way the government can prove that a privately-sold gun was sold at a time when the background check was supposed to take place -- that is, the only way the government can enforce the law. If the government cannot enforce the law, then the law is useless and the restriction it places on the right to arms cannot stand up to any level of scrutiny.

Government has no right knowing what we have

Of course -- gun registration clearly violates the constitution.

I do wish to USE the government to tell me who is legally allowed to purchase a firearm however.

Of course. Maybe post names on the internet.

Posting the names on a national data base is a GOOD idea. I would love to see that. As far as your assertion that registration is the only way to trace the firearm, that is not true, but it does make it more difficult. Doesn't matter though, possession of firearms is not a crime, the criminal MISUSE of them is. Punish that in the most severe way possible to remove the violent offenders from the population and you reduce violent crime by a ton.

That and legalizing drugs will help the most.

 

[Nosmo King]

Please point out my post where I said "ban everything" or lay off the hyperbole and lies.

Define "Well Regulated".

I've already asked that question without response.

I know what the Founders defined it as, I want to hear what you think it means.

An organized group under the scrutiny of government. Not a bunch of your beer buddies cruising around in a Dodge Durango.

So in other words, ONLY GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED SOLDIERS. Got it. That's what the 2nd was designed to protect us from. Your argument fails on historical, AND legal grounds.

Try again.

If everyone with a gun is constitutionally considered a "well regulated militia", aren't the Crips, Bloods and the Hell's Angels also "well regulated militias"?

 

[westwall]

Of course -- gun registration clearly violates the constitution.

Only it doesn't!

The founding fathers passed gun registration shortly after the nation was established.

But there doesn't need to be any gun registration if you reintroduce the draft.

Then you have everyone registered and you have their fingerprints and DNA on file. You can do mental evaluations and have them repeated every 2 years.

The draft will eliminate many of the firearm accidents since there will be a consistent level of training nationwide.

The draft will also provide a recruiting tool for the military and other agencies.

It won't eliminate them. The NRA's Eddie Eagle has done more to reduce negligent discharges than almost any other program out there. I can't keep track of the number of police officer negligent discharges I have seen or heard about. One of the most egregious was by a CA DOJ agent who was also their firearms "expert". He had two negligent discharges that I know about. One was with a pistol, the other was when he fired a round off from his AR-15 and almost killed a friend of mine who was also on the DOJ team. He managed to do this in the San Francisco office.

'Tard.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Define "Well Regulated".

I've already asked that question without response.

I know what the Founders defined it as, I want to hear what you think it means.

An organized group under the scrutiny of government. Not a bunch of your beer buddies cruising around in a Dodge Durango.

So in other words, ONLY GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED SOLDIERS. Got it. That's what the 2nd was designed to protect us from. Your argument fails on historical, AND legal grounds.

Try again.

If everyone with a gun is constitutionally considered a "well regulated militia", aren't the Crips, Bloods and the Hell's Angels also "well regulated militias"?

The term "well regulated" implies regulations which is what gun registration would be in effect.

Regulating the militia means having a record of both the firearms and those who possess them.

Even the Heller decision conceded that there was nothing unconstitutional about registering guns.

But having a fingerprint and DNA registration of every citizen is not unconstitutional either. Given the advances in forensics identifying people by their DNA is a relatively simple and quick way to determine who the suspects would be in ALL criminal acts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

ok...
How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

ok...
How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

If the criminals are the problem and not the guns then having a DNA and fingerprint registration of everyone in the nation will enable law enforcement to quickly identify who the criminals are and bring them to trail.

That just leaves the problem with guns getting into the hands to the mentally unstable.

The draft that I suggested would help to identify those candidates.

What is your solution for them?

 

[westwall]

Define "Well Regulated".

I've already asked that question without response.

I know what the Founders defined it as, I want to hear what you think it means.

An organized group under the scrutiny of government. Not a bunch of your beer buddies cruising around in a Dodge Durango.

So in other words, ONLY GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED SOLDIERS. Got it. That's what the 2nd was designed to protect us from. Your argument fails on historical, AND legal grounds.

Try again.

If everyone with a gun is constitutionally considered a "well regulated militia", aren't the Crips, Bloods and the Hell's Angels also "well regulated militias"?

No, but they are considered to be in the unorganized militia. Of course if you really wanted to stop violent crime you would put every one of those gang members in prison and throw away the key. But we both know you would never dare do that.

 

[westwall]

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.

ok...
How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

If the criminals are the problem and not the guns then having a DNA and fingerprint registration of everyone in the nation will enable law enforcement to quickly identify who the criminals are and bring them to trail.

That just leaves the problem with guns getting into the hands to the mentally unstable.

The draft that I suggested would help to identify those candidates.

What is your solution for them?

How Orwellian of you. Records get messed with all the time so that won't work either.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

ok...
How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

The perpetrators of mass shootings seem to be, in the words of the gun lovers, "law abiding citizens" right up to the point they pull the trigger in a school or theater or church.

Keeping criminals in jail is a good point of departure. But that costs more money than most Conservatives want to spend. We already lead the world in incarceration. And mass shooting. Given that fact, If the notion of banning weapons of warcraft, not sport, is an unacceptable idea,

 

[Truth2Know]

There is no gun control measure that will prevent criminals from getting guns. Just like there is no way to prevent drunk and drugged people from getting behind the steering wheel of a car.

The best that can be done is to take care of the improper use of firearms after the fact. If convicted of committing a crime while in possession of a firearm, whether or not it is fired, the criminal is executed. By firing squad. This will at least weed out the repeat offenders and those stupid enough to tote a gun while engaging in criminal activity.

While we're at it, may as well make execution the penalty for accidents caused by drunk/drugged drivers, too.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

ok...
How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

What other criminals? My point was if you are a violent criminal that should not have access to guns.. then don't let em out. If they are a violent criminal that has done his time and deserves access to guns again.... then let them out. If you let a violent criminal out that you don't want to have access to guns... there is no way to stop them from getting access to guns. It's impossible.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

ok...
How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

The perpetrators of mass shootings seem to be, in the words of the gun lovers, "law abiding citizens" right up to the point they pull the trigger in a school or theater or church.

Keeping criminals in jail is a good point of departure. But that costs more money than most Conservatives want to spend. We already lead the world in incarceration. And mass shooting. Given that fact, If the notion of banning weapons of warcraft, not sport, is an unacceptable idea,

We lead the world in incarceration because of the war on drugs. End that.

As for mass shootings... those are caused by liberal laws that forbid us from defending ourselves. End those.

You ignored my point about putting criminals to work in jails. Jails should be self sustaining. Tax payers should not be footing the bill for criminals, the criminals should pay their own damn bills. If they can't work hard enough to fund their bills... let em starve to death or get money from a chairity or family members.

 

[westwall]

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.

ok...
How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

The perpetrators of mass shootings seem to be, in the words of the gun lovers, "law abiding citizens" right up to the point they pull the trigger in a school or theater or church.

Keeping criminals in jail is a good point of departure. But that costs more money than most Conservatives want to spend. We already lead the world in incarceration. And mass shooting. Given that fact, If the notion of banning weapons of warcraft, not sport, is an unacceptable idea,

No, the evidence says the opposite. They are not "normal" people. They are almost all on some type of psychotropic drug or have been in some form of mental therapy, they have had run ins with the law in many cases, Klebold for instance had a felony arrest hanging over his head, in other words there should have been a way to keep these people under control but the government failed to do so.

As far as the huge number of locked up criminals, I agree with you that the majority should be released. The only people who should be in prison are violent offenders. Those who are non violent should be in work camps working off their sentences.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

ok...
How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

The perpetrators of mass shootings seem to be, in the words of the gun lovers, "law abiding citizens" right up to the point they pull the trigger in a school or theater or church.

Keeping criminals in jail is a good point of departure. But that costs more money than most Conservatives want to spend. We already lead the world in incarceration. And mass shooting. Given that fact, If the notion of banning weapons of warcraft, not sport, is an unacceptable idea,

We lead the world in incarceration because of the war on drugs. End that.

As for mass shootings... those are caused by liberal laws that forbid us from defending ourselves. End those.

You ignored my point about putting criminals to work in jails. Jails should be self sustaining. Tax payers should not be footing the bill for criminals, the criminals should pay their own damn bills. If they can't work hard enough to fund their bills... let em starve to death or get money from a chairity or family members.

The state sentences criminals, and incarcerates them. They are literally in the custody of the state.

Ignoring the, is not a value any American state should embrace. And the only state that comes to mind that intentionally staved those who they hold in prison is Nazi Germany. Do you want to hold them as your paradigm of statecraft?

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

ok...
How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

The perpetrators of mass shootings seem to be, in the words of the gun lovers, "law abiding citizens" right up to the point they pull the trigger in a school or theater or church.

Keeping criminals in jail is a good point of departure. But that costs more money than most Conservatives want to spend. We already lead the world in incarceration. And mass shooting. Given that fact, If the notion of banning weapons of warcraft, not sport, is an unacceptable idea,

No, the evidence says the opposite. They are not "normal" people. They are almost all on some type of psychotropic drug or have been in some form of mental therapy, they have had run ins with the law in many cases, Klebold for instance had a felony arrest hanging over his head, in other words there should have been a way to keep these people under control but the government failed to do so.

As far as the huge number of locked up criminals, I agree with you that the majority should be released. The only people who should be in prison are violent offenders. Those who are non violent should be in work camps working off their sentences.

And yet, background checks are seen as an infringement.

 

[westwall]

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.

ok...
How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. Oh and criminals should be on chain gangs earning their keep, not on vacation spending taxpayer dollars. Make Jails profitable again.

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

The perpetrators of mass shootings seem to be, in the words of the gun lovers, "law abiding citizens" right up to the point they pull the trigger in a school or theater or church.

Keeping criminals in jail is a good point of departure. But that costs more money than most Conservatives want to spend. We already lead the world in incarceration. And mass shooting. Given that fact, If the notion of banning weapons of warcraft, not sport, is an unacceptable idea,

We lead the world in incarceration because of the war on drugs. End that.

As for mass shootings... those are caused by liberal laws that forbid us from defending ourselves. End those.

You ignored my point about putting criminals to work in jails. Jails should be self sustaining. Tax payers should not be footing the bill for criminals, the criminals should pay their own damn bills. If they can't work hard enough to fund their bills... let em starve to death or get money from a chairity or family members.

The state sentences criminals, and incarcerates them. They are literally in the custody of the state.

Ignoring the, is not a value any American state should embrace. And the only state that comes to mind that intentionally staved those who they hold in prison is Nazi Germany. Do you want to hold them as your paradigm of statecraft?

You're forgetting the Soviet gulags, and Mao's wonderful resorts. Basically it is the progressive countries of the world that have murdered the most people. Usually by starvation.