Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?

In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.

And more gun deaths.

Does that even make sense?

You make it sound like shooting criminals committing crimes with guns is bad....

 

[P@triot]

You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.

Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out". Not possible. Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements. Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.

"Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction. They're part of human nature. That's the first thing you gotta get through your head. Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit. Everything has a reason.

Good, now that admit evil exists in the world there are only two choices: get rid of it or defend against it. Gun grabbing does neither.

(Now this is the part where pogo goes all unhinged calls it a gun problem, but then denies he's against disarming the people even though he's wailed against guns and called them a "problem" )

 

[kaz]

So then naturally you believe the Secret Service should immediately disarm, right? I mean, if guns are dangerous, than the president is in mortal danger as we speak. Furthermore, if outlawing guns makes the world safe, then all we need to do is outlaw guns and the president will be permanently and forever safe...

Yeah that is a wacko idea. Maybe it belongs standing out in the cornfield scaring crows where you got it, ya think?

You heard it here first folks - [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] openly admitting that disarming people is a "wacko" idea (and that was after he declared that people need to be disarmed )

But he's not arguing for gun laws. Sure he's not...

 

[P@triot]

It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post. Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read? You're obviously not qualified here. I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read. That's how it is.

As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass. And there you are.

It’s more than just the inability to read – it’s also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to ‘disarm people.’ The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.

It's his simplistic mind that sees what it wants to see and lacks the creativity to fathom that there may be some interpretation he has yet to think of. And it's old.

In other words - someone is desperate to run away from their previous statements.

If I'm wrong about your very clear black & white statements, then give us your new "interpretation" of it. I've asked you 3 times now and you're too afraid to answer. You keep running further and further.

 

[kaz]

Of course I remember that. I've used that line multiple times on this site.

That's not the question.

The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?

I don't have all night...

Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only two posts ago? Really? Good grief...

No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.

You’ve got to be kidding – only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating ‘disarming people.’

An "idiot" is someone who thinks that someone arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws is for gun laws. Got it.

I haven't read that stupid an argument since pogo called me a liar for saying he's calling me a female when he kept referring to me as "she."

So pogo, what if you clarify your view on gun laws and stop dancing and word parsing.

 

[kaz]

You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.

To clarify, are you saying we should restrict guns and do this or are you saying we should do this but still not restrict guns?

 

[kaz]

And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it does mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...

It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post. Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read? You're obviously not qualified here. I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read. That's how it is.

As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass. And there you are.

It’s more than just the inability to read – it’s also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to ‘disarm people.’ The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.

It's also that people keep asking him if by arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws if he'll address the op and clarify what he is saying regarding the point of the thread he's posting in and he won't do it.

If a Republican were playing this game, you'd be all over them. And no Republican would be doing what you are doing and defending it, they'd be saying to answer the question and address the op in the thread they are posting in. Leftists are collectivists, you hold Republicans to an unmeetable standard and your own to no standard. Republicans have other issues, but they are not collectivists. At least not in government.

 

[kaz]

You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.

Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out". Not possible. Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements. Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.

"Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction. They're part of human nature. That's the first thing you gotta get through your head. Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit. Everything has a reason.

Actually the increase in prison populations over the last couple decades is highly correlated with the reduction in crime.

 

[P@triot]

It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post. Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read? You're obviously not qualified here. I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read. That's how it is.

As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass. And there you are.

It’s more than just the inability to read – it’s also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to ‘disarm people.’ The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.

It's his simplistic mind that sees what it wants to see and lacks the creativity to fathom that there may be some interpretation he has yet to think of. And it's old.

So if you're not for guns ("it's like adding gasoline to a fire) and you're not against guns, what are you for? You're literally sitting there cross-dressing and "pinching your blackheads" in a tizzy about your life and lack of attention. So you just want to join the conversation even though you don't understand the issue and deny having a plan or a stance on the issue. You're little thong is chaffing you and you're just in a tizzy.

Either state what you meant (which you're too afraid because you know I'll just keep exposing your ignorance and continue to make you my personal bitch on USMB) or go away troll. As usual, you're adding nothing of value either way to this thread (but you sure as hell are all jacked up). It's more of the same - pogo pissing and moaning about everyone. No wonder your life is so miserable and you can't hold a job.

 

[P@triot]

SMH - see, this is why I keep advising you it might be a good idea to learn to read, Einstein.

There is no part of that post that says diddly about "people being disarmed".

There is no part of any of my posts that says diddly about "people being disarmed".

There is no part of any of my posts that advocates any "laws", passing laws, loosening laws, tightening laws, giving laws a fucking laxative, or anything else, except to note that it would have no effect on gun violence.

There is no part of any of my posts that says outlawing something "prevents" it. On the contrary I've said the opposite, consistently, forever.

Congratulations. You just exposed yourself to be as stupid as I noted. For all the world to see.

Dumb shit.

Wow! Someone's panties are all bunched up today, uh? You've got to love Dumbocrats. They are so proud of their position, they didn't say what they said and they deny saying what they said they didn't say...

Incidentally, you filled your unhinged rant with what you "didn't" say but you're refusing to state what you did say. Gee, I wonder why that is! Someone afraid they can't explain their way out of a post which stated "the answer to the gun problem is more guns...that's like saying the answer to a fire is gasoline"? I mean, the fact that you said "gun problem" just proves your an irrational anti-gun nut. What gun "problem" do we have? We clearly have a gun control problem, a gun legislation problem, and a victim zone problem. But I've yet to see evidence of even a single gun "problem".

What I said is right there in the post, shit-for-brains. You don't get to inject your own content.

So to summarize - you don't know what you meant and you don't know how you feel about this issue. You just want some attention. Ok. Got it.

 

[P@triot]

How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?

In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.

Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.

I love when pogo denies what he said even though what he said is posted for everyone to see... (this kid is in more desperate need of mental health meds than any unhinged libtard I have seen on USMB).

 

[jon_berzerk]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Whats your plan?

My plan is to eliminate gun laws and allow people to defend themselves. When criminals don't know who is armed, gun murders plummet. The places with the most gun laws have the most gun deaths and vice versa. It's not a coincidence.

Florida is revamping the syg law clarifying to include immunity for brandishing a firearm

in self defense

 

[jon_berzerk]

You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.

the first two terms in prison should lengthy ones to begin with

i was watching a show this afternoon

this kid shot and killed his mom and dad

he was sentenced to a minimum of 5 to 10 years

so really anything after 5 years

I guess I should have elaborated more, the intentional taking of another life counts as 3 with a streamlined automatic appeals process taking no more than ninety days if it's the first offense.

yup

 

[jon_berzerk]

In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.

Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.

I love when pogo denies what he said even though what he said is posted for everyone to see... (this kid is in more desperate need of mental health meds than any unhinged libtard I have seen on USMB).

from his posts it is quite obvious

that he wants to get rid of guns

 

[hunarcy]

Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.

It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.

It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.

You just think he wants to disarm everyone because you have no proper comeback, so you reach for a simplistic strawman argument.

 

[hangover]

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

The only way is to declare the NRA a terrorist organization. When that happens, gun owners won't be flaunting their guns.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

The answer to guns in the hands of criminals is guns in the hands of the honest citizens they prey on, you betcha.

So what is your proposal to keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens so we can have this superior state you advocate where only criminals are armed?

Gun fanatics don't seem to realize that the criminals are using legally purchased guns that end up on the black market because of the NRA and super lax gun laws. Strengthening gun laws would be to close the easy loopholes so that in fact, criminals would have a harder time getting guns.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

The answer to guns in the hands of criminals is guns in the hands of the honest citizens they prey on, you betcha.

So what is your proposal to keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens so we can have this superior state you advocate where only criminals are armed?

Gun fanatics don't seem to realize that the criminals are using legally purchased guns that end up on the black market because of the NRA and super lax gun laws. Strengthening gun laws would be to close the easy loopholes so that in fact, criminals would have a harder time getting guns.

unless we can think of a way to decrease the motivation to commit violent crime

the black market for firearms will never be defeated

 

[kaz]

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

The answer to guns in the hands of criminals is guns in the hands of the honest citizens they prey on, you betcha.

So what is your proposal to keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens so we can have this superior state you advocate where only criminals are armed?

Gun fanatics don't seem to realize that the criminals are using legally purchased guns that end up on the black market because of the NRA and super lax gun laws. Strengthening gun laws would be to close the easy loopholes so that in fact, criminals would have a harder time getting guns.

Please read the op and address the point. You're begging the question. You're stating that gun laws would work, the op asks why they would work when any kid can get all the pot they want and pot is illegal. So how are gun laws going to keep guns away from criminals?