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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's worse than what we have now. Most criminals actually don't have assets. That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases. This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens’ civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.

 

[P@triot]

1. Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;

2. Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;

3. Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;

4. Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;

5. Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.

That's worse than what we have now. Most criminals actually don't have assets. That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases. This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

Well, honest citizens wouldn't lie 24x7 like Dumbocrats do on tv, in the newspaper, and on the internet such as here on USMB.

So by your idiot "logic" Wry, should all Americans lose their 1st Amendment Rights?

 

[OKTexas]

Anyone who is against gun control has blood on their hands from Sandy Hook and all the others. Countries with less guns have less gun violence, it's a fact.

Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.

 

[P@triot]

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens’ civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.

Pity the ignorance of you CCJ and your Dumbocrat brethren who believe you can build a crime-free utopia by banning firearms. As I've stated already, and you've been too big of a disingenuous pussy to address, murder and rape have been outlawed since the beginning of time - and yet both happen every minute of every day somewhere in the U.S. How do you explain that since you've already "banned" both, asshat?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens’ civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.

And everything you just mentioned is a non sequitur. You use the same reasoning with gun owners and gun rights, so that makes you a hypocrite; just as inconsistent as you claim other people to be.

 

[P@triot]

Anyone who is against gun control has blood on their hands from Sandy Hook and all the others. Countries with less guns have less gun violence, it's a fact.

Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.

Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.

Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped murder with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Once again, you're mincing words. You have a conspicuously negative attitude towards gun rights folks, which implies to me that you might favor gun control more than you realize.

OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.

You like video games? Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette? None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
See where I am?

You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.

Your terminology is giving your position away.

Nonsense.

Those of us who are staunch advocates of Second Amendment rights cringe when exposed to the stupidity and ignorance of ‘gun rights’ extremists, with their moronic, errant notion that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not subject to reasonable restrictions, or that the Second Amendment somehow ‘trumps’ the First, allowing a minority of the population to ‘take up arms’ against a Federal government subjectively perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

Their ignorance and stupidity do more to undermine Second Amendment rights than any ‘gun grabber,’ because they reinforce the ugly stereotype of gun owners being irresponsible, thus facilitating efforts to enact more gun control.

 

[TemplarKormac]

OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.

You like video games? Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette? None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
See where I am?

You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.

Your terminology is giving your position away.

Nonsense.

Those of us who are staunch advocates of Second Amendment rights cringe when exposed to the stupidity and ignorance of ‘gun rights’ extremists, with their moronic, errant notion that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not subject to reasonable restrictions, or that the Second Amendment somehow ‘trumps’ the First, allowing a minority of the population to ‘take up arms’ against a Federal government subjectively perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

Their ignorance and stupidity do more to undermine Second Amendment rights than any ‘gun grabber,’ because they reinforce the ugly stereotype of gun owners being irresponsible, thus facilitating efforts to enact more gun control.

Thank you sir, for reaffirming your hypocrisy on the law.

 

[kaz]

I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK. That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine. Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers". So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless. Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural. It's fetishism. The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.

As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences. Doesn't matter what the laws are. Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.

Actually, I pretty clearly stated the fact that you were arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws. Which you agreed with. And I asked you what you did mean then, and got no answer until a couple posts ago. You know, like when you kept badgering Templar to clarify his views on another thread...

"I got no answer" means "I didn't get the answer I wanted to hear and could deal with". Your illiteracy is not my problem, Cousin It.

I got no answer until a few posts ago. Note when you did finally state it, I jumped in and acknowledged it. This makes no sense. And seriously with the name calling, are you eight? Or you're just emotionally eight?

 

[kaz]

1. Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;

2. Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;

3. Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;

4. Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;

5. Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.

That's worse than what we have now. Most criminals actually don't have assets. That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases. This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

So criminals would buy guns that were stolen and if you get rid of those they would import them. Guns are low technology, easy to build. And note that your ilk insist people can walk unabated across our borders, it's easy to smuggle in the same way. Like they do with drugs...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.

Your terminology is giving your position away.

Nonsense.

Those of us who are staunch advocates of Second Amendment rights cringe when exposed to the stupidity and ignorance of ‘gun rights’ extremists, with their moronic, errant notion that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not subject to reasonable restrictions, or that the Second Amendment somehow ‘trumps’ the First, allowing a minority of the population to ‘take up arms’ against a Federal government subjectively perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

Their ignorance and stupidity do more to undermine Second Amendment rights than any ‘gun grabber,’ because they reinforce the ugly stereotype of gun owners being irresponsible, thus facilitating efforts to enact more gun control.

Thank you sir, for reaffirming your hypocrisy on the law.

You are, however, consistent in making no sense, the above being a typical example.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yep their part of human nature, but if they learn that there will be no revolving door in the jail they will adjust their bahavior or die, it's a very simple concept, if you can't live by the rules then you will die by the rules.

 

[kaz]

That's worse than what we have now. Most criminals actually don't have assets. That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases. This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

Precisely -- another fallacy of that false dichotomy of seeing the world as a giant game of Cowboys and Indians.

So in your view, are the criminals equivalent to the Cowboys or the Indians?

Honest citizens are good, criminals are bad. Since neither cowboys nor Indians were all good or all bad, you presented your own false dichotomy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nonsense.

Those of us who are staunch advocates of Second Amendment rights cringe when exposed to the stupidity and ignorance of ‘gun rights’ extremists, with their moronic, errant notion that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not subject to reasonable restrictions, or that the Second Amendment somehow ‘trumps’ the First, allowing a minority of the population to ‘take up arms’ against a Federal government subjectively perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

Their ignorance and stupidity do more to undermine Second Amendment rights than any ‘gun grabber,’ because they reinforce the ugly stereotype of gun owners being irresponsible, thus facilitating efforts to enact more gun control.

Thank you sir, for reaffirming your hypocrisy on the law.

You are, however, consistent in making no sense, the above being a typical example.

A-ha!

And ad hominem signals the end of your premise. Have a seat Clayton. If you were so worried about equal protection under the law, you would be passing laws protecting, not eliminating, the rights of law abiding gun owners. But oh hey, whatever floats your political boat, mister.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anyone who is against gun control has blood on their hands from Sandy Hook and all the others. Countries with less guns have less gun violence, it's a fact.

Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.

Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.

Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped murder with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.

And here we have an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most ‘gun rights’ extremists; unwittingly doing great harm to our Second Amendment rights.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

Precisely -- another fallacy of that false dichotomy of seeing the world as a giant game of Cowboys and Indians.

So in your view, are the criminals equivalent to the Cowboys or the Indians?

Honest citizens are good, criminals are bad. Since neither cowboys nor Indians were all good or all bad, you presented your own false dichotomy.

Bingo.

 

[kaz]

Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market. Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?

Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens’ civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.

Equal protection: Gays have equal protection, they can marry the same people that they would be able to marry if they were straight.

Privacy: It is you who has bastardized the Constitution. Privacy is primarily protected by the 10th amendment, but you have eliminated that, so you have gone back and added another privacy protection that isn't there to fix the problem you created when you ignored the constitution.

Voting: There is no right to vote in the Constitution, sorry Homey.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.

Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.

Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped murder with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.

And here we have an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most ‘gun rights’ extremists; unwittingly doing great harm to our Second Amendment rights.

Uh, what?

That is a classic Post hoc argument, Clayton.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Anyone who is against gun control has blood on their hands from Sandy Hook and all the others. Countries with less guns have less gun violence, it's a fact.

Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.

Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.

Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped murder with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.

Fuck, are you stupid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Yep their part of human nature, but if they learn that there will be no revolving door in the jail they will adjust their bahavior or die, it's a very simple concept, if you can't live by the rules then you will die by the rules.

Absent due process, of course.