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

[kaz]

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.

Pogo argued against guns in a thread about gun laws. Then he's saying that he didn't use the word "law." He also called me a liar BTW because I said he called me female because he started calling me "she."

Even if you consider it a strawman to think that someone arguing against guns in a threat about gun laws is arguing for gun laws, he's been repeatedly asked to clarify what he does mean. Do you not think that he should man up and answer the question in the op if he's going to argue with people about it in the thread?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Pogo argued against guns in a thread about gun laws. Then he's saying that he didn't use the word "law." He also called me a liar BTW because I said he called me female because he started calling me "she."

Even if you consider it a strawman to think that someone arguing against guns in a threat about gun laws is arguing for gun laws, he's been repeatedly asked to clarify what he does mean. Do you not think that he should man up and answer the question in the op if he's going to argue with people about it in the thread?

Look at it this way, cousin It: When you post fabrications and attribute them to me, I WILL correct the record. You can take that to the bank.
If that sucks, well it's too damn bad. Don't make shit up in the first place and you won't have that problem.

I mean ------- duh.

 

[kaz]

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

Pogo argued against guns in a thread about gun laws. Then he's saying that he didn't use the word "law." He also called me a liar BTW because I said he called me female because he started calling me "she."

Even if you consider it a strawman to think that someone arguing against guns in a threat about gun laws is arguing for gun laws, he's been repeatedly asked to clarify what he does mean. Do you not think that he should man up and answer the question in the op if he's going to argue with people about it in the thread?

Look at it this way, cousin It: When you post fabrications and attribute them to me, I WILL correct the record. You can take that to the bank.
If that sucks, well it's too damn bad. Don't make shit up in the first place and you won't have that problem.

I mean ------- duh.

So when you started referring to me as "she" and I said you were calling me female and you called me a "liar" you were just correcting the record. When you go into a thread about gun laws and argue with everyone who opposes gun laws that more guns is bad and we say you're for gun laws, you're just correcting the record. It depends what the definition of "it" is, doesn't it, Slick? BTW, Clinton wasn't parsing words, he was ... lying. And so are you.

BTW, it's Cousin Itt, not Cousin It.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I agree. That's what I've been saying as long as I've been on this site. And dèjá vu, we've done this before, I believe it was this same poster -- somewhere.

Where we differ is on the concept of "evil". You and OKTex speak as if it's a separate kind of life form that isn't part of "us" -- this point hanging on the premise that there is and "us" and a "them".

I submit that way of looking at the world is complete bullshit. There is always a piece of "them" in the "us", and the more one considers oneself one of the "us", the less one can see it. That's exactly why I'm against that dichotomy; it blinds us with a false illusion. And I see an opportunity to connect this thought in the next post...

 

[Pogo]

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....

You make it sound like shooting anyone is good...

 

[kaz]

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.

I agree. That's what I've been saying as long as I've been on this site. And dèjá vu, we've done this before, I believe it was this same poster -- somewhere.

Where we differ is on the concept of "evil". You and OKTex speak as if it's a separate kind of life form that isn't part of "us" -- this point hanging on the premise that there is and "us" and a "them".

I submit that's bullshit. There is always a piece of "them" in the "us", and the more one considers oneself one of the "us", the less one can see it. That's exactly why I'm against that dichotomy; it blinds us with a false illusion. I'll connect this in the next post.

"Them" are the criminals who are going to buy guns regardless of the law. "Us" are the ones who won't break the law who you get murdered when you make guns illegal. So "Us" would be for example all the people who owned guns and didn't have them in the Washington Navy Yard because they followed the law. "Them" would be the shooter who ignored that it was illegal to have a gun at the Washington Navy Yard. Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[kaz]

And more gun deaths.

Does that even make sense?

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

You make it sound like shooting anyone is good...

Yes, shooting criminals with guns is good. I thought I was clear about that the first time.

 

[Pogo]

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.

In other words your plan is anarchy, chaos and the law of the jungle. Might makes right. Testosterone über alles. Please. You live in a comic book.

That's why I don't bother to go into complexities with the likes of you and Buttsoiler. You don't have the intellectual capacity to handle it. So you make up your own shit, which I then have to shoot down and embarrass you by challenging you to post what you think I said, and then you come up empty.

 

[kaz]

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.

I agree. That's what I've been saying as long as I've been on this site

What you have not said is how we actually accomplish getting guns out of the hands of the criminals. You know, the question I asked in the op...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Then you’re as much an idiot as the other idiot.

 

[kaz]

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.

In other words your plan is anarchy, chaos and the law of the jungle. Might makes right. Testosterone über alles. Please. You live in a comic book.

That's why I don't bother to go into complexities with the likes of you and Buttsoiler. You don't have the intellectual capacity to handle it. So you make up your own shit, which I then have to shoot down and embarrass you by challenging you to post what you think I said, and then you come up empty.

So the police removing your ability to defend yourself is what protects us from anarchy. LOL.

 

[Pogo]

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.

When did this become a thread about gun laws?

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

There's no reference there to "laws".

Or are you too dim to see that in your own title?

 

[kaz]

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.

When did this become a thread about gun laws?

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

There's no reference there to "laws".

Or are you too dim to see that in your own title?

LOL, the op:

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.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I agree. That's what I've been saying as long as I've been on this site. And dèjá vu, we've done this before, I believe it was this same poster -- somewhere.

Where we differ is on the concept of "evil". You and OKTex speak as if it's a separate kind of life form that isn't part of "us" -- this point hanging on the premise that there is and "us" and a "them".

I submit that's bullshit. There is always a piece of "them" in the "us", and the more one considers oneself one of the "us", the less one can see it. That's exactly why I'm against that dichotomy; it blinds us with a false illusion. I'll connect this in the next post.

"Them" are the criminals who are going to buy guns regardless of the law. "Us" are the ones who won't break the law who you get murdered when you make guns illegal. So "Us" would be for example all the people who owned guns and didn't have them in the Washington Navy Yard because they followed the law. "Them" would be the shooter who ignored that it was illegal to have a gun at the Washington Navy Yard. Glad I could clear that up for you.

And as long as you slavishly lock yourself into that childish box you will never grok anything I'm saying. I won't bother with you further until you figure a way out of it and get past post 2224. Maybe when you're older.

 

[Pogo]

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.

When did this become a thread about gun laws?

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

There's no reference there to "laws".

Or are you too dim to see that in your own title?

LOL, the op:

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.

None of that applies to me; I've never said we need more gun laws. Again, the title says nothing about "laws". It didn't five seconds ago and it still doesn't now. Duh.
Apprently you think all you have to do is post a false premise and it magically takes life. Let me know when you grow up.

 

[kaz]

I agree. That's what I've been saying as long as I've been on this site. And dèjá vu, we've done this before, I believe it was this same poster -- somewhere.

Where we differ is on the concept of "evil". You and OKTex speak as if it's a separate kind of life form that isn't part of "us" -- this point hanging on the premise that there is and "us" and a "them".

I submit that's bullshit. There is always a piece of "them" in the "us", and the more one considers oneself one of the "us", the less one can see it. That's exactly why I'm against that dichotomy; it blinds us with a false illusion. I'll connect this in the next post.

"Them" are the criminals who are going to buy guns regardless of the law. "Us" are the ones who won't break the law who you get murdered when you make guns illegal. So "Us" would be for example all the people who owned guns and didn't have them in the Washington Navy Yard because they followed the law. "Them" would be the shooter who ignored that it was illegal to have a gun at the Washington Navy Yard. Glad I could clear that up for you.

And as long as you slavishly lock yourself into that childish box you will never grok anything I'm saying. I won't bother with you further until you figure a way out of it and get past post 2224. Maybe when you're older.

I am locking myself into separating honest citizens who follow the law from criminals who don't.

For once in your life you are right about something, I do separate honest citizens from criminals. I'd ask why that's bad, but there is nothing you can say that would convince me I should equate them, so I won't ask.

I would like you to address the op though.

 

[kaz]

When did this become a thread about gun laws?

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

There's no reference there to "laws".

Or are you too dim to see that in your own title?

LOL, the op:

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.

None of that applies to me; I've never said we need more gun laws. Again, the title says nothing about "laws". It didn't five seconds ago and it still doesn't now. Duh.

I am the original poster, the title is a summary. The first post states what the discussion is about. Notice if you mouse over thread titles, the first post pops up. That is so with the title and the first post, you know what the thread is about. Seriously, how do you not know that?

 

[Howey]

Easy...

1. Strict registration of all guns and stricter regulation of laws.

2. Mandatory felony and 3-5 years in prison for anyone who leaves a gun available for theft.

3. Mandatory 10-25 years in prison for anyone selling, bartering, or giving a gun away without a background check and registration. Ban all gun shows.

4. Mandatory felony life in prison for criminals using a gun, stolen or not, in a crime.

Eventually, guns will disappear from the hands of criminals who use them to commit crimes.

 

[Pogo]

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

What he wants to get rid of is gun fetishism. Which is what drives a ridiculous statement like 'the answer to guns is MORE guns'. He wants to shine the mentality.

And you don't do that with laws. And that's the part that sails over the heads of the Buttsoilers and Kazmats, those intellectual giants who find themselves unable to think beyond the simplistic.

Laws are irrelevant distraction. We didn't get where we are out of laws, nor will they take us out. And this is why I don't bother commenting on law; it's not a legislative problem; it's a cultural problem.

 

[kaz]

Easy...

1. Strict registration of all guns and stricter regulation of laws.

2. Mandatory felony and 3-5 years in prison for anyone who leaves a gun available for theft.

3. Mandatory 10-25 years in prison for anyone selling, bartering, or giving a gun away without a background check and registration. Ban all gun shows.

4. Mandatory felony life in prison for criminals using a gun, stolen or not, in a crime.

Eventually, guns will disappear from the hands of criminals who use them to commit crimes.

I have conceded that Singapore style enforcement of laws would work. However, that's not going to happen. You're going from our current solution, which is similar to drugs, which is supported by the left, and you're going to a solution that no one supports. I am not arguing you didn't address the op, you did. But it doesn't end the discussion for that reason. No one supports it.