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

[P@triot]

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.

Ah - classic, pure, Dumbocrat ignorance. Think of the absurd contradiction of that statement. Rights should be "subject" to "reasonable" restrictions?

There are a billion ways to smash such unadulterated ignorance - but I'll start with the most obvious and simple: who gets to decide what constitutes "reasonable restrictions" CCJ? Anti-gun nuts like you and Obama? Like Michael Bloomberg?

I look forward to you running from this reality like the disingenuous coward that you are....

 

[P@triot]

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.

And yet you can't dispute a single thing I said - because the facts prove I'm right. When was the last time a maniac walked into an NRA meeting and opened fire?

Where you assholes create VITCIM ZONES, massacres ensue. And frankly, the American people are getting good and damn tired of it. Which is why you're panties are in a bunch. You know the indisputable facts have you on the verge of losing this battle.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Another ignorant Dumbocrat pissed that they can't dispute the facts...

 

[P@triot]

In fact this whole gun control thing is a reverse post hoc argument.

"By banning or confiscating guns in regards to gun violence, you will therefore avoid gun violence."

Sigh, such fallacious thinking. Chicago should be a prime example.

What do you mean "should" be? Chicago is a prime example. As is cocaine, heroin, crack, meth, marijuana, rape, prostitution, sex-slaves, molestation, child-trafficking, child pornography, stabbing, theft, robbery, arson, embezzlement, tax evasion, organized crime, assault, battery, domestic violence, MURDER...... it's endless. All of it outlawed, and all of it still happening.

Yet ignorant asshates like CCJ think they can "outlaw" gun violence out of existence. Really? And the 3,000 other examples (murder, rape, etc.) which are outlawed and still occur daily are what - anomalies that won't happen with guns?

Jesus, these Dumbocrats are so fuck'n stupid it actually gives me chills. No wonder they need to live off of government.

 

[Pogo]

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?

"Name calling"??

Look It, you parade around in a dress and then wet your pants when I logically use the pronoun "she" and then refuse to state at all what your fucking gender is, that makes you an "It". You don't like it, It, then figure out what your own damn sex is and stop hiding behind a dress, asshole.

 

[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.

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.

That has never worked. Hell your own state executes murderers; has that stopped murder?

Again, the body we call "criminals is not like some species you can extinguish. It's an aribitrary category. Criminals today were good citizens yesterday.

Simple concept? Sure is. Way TOO simple.

 

[Londoner]

What about the legislation Ronald Reagan supported?

 

[OKTexas]

Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.

or to vote.

Last time I looked no one every got killed by a welfare check or a vote.

Really, politicians have killed more peopel than any criminal, you commies claim Bush killed thousands. Votes put him in office.

 

[Pogo]

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.

More like Bullshit.

There is no game of cowboys and Indians. That was the whole point. Sailed right over Cousin It's head and apparently yours too.

"False dichotomy" my asshole. Right over It's head.

 

[Bumberclyde]

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.

Another ignorant Dumbocrat pissed that they can't dispute the facts...

Instead of packing their kids a lunch, mom's all across your world would pack them a piece.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

That has never worked. Hell your own state executes murderers; has that stopped murder?

Again, the body we call "criminals is not like some species you can extinguish. It's an aribitrary category. Criminals today were good citizens yesterday.

Simple concept? Sure is. Way TOO simple.

I don't expect to make them go extinct, I expect it would shorten their criminal careers substantially and reduce the numbers of their victims and save money on warehousing them. People are going to screw up, under my plan they just wouldn't be allowed to make a long term habit of it.

 

[P@triot]

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.

That has never worked. Hell your own state executes murderers; has that stopped murder?

Again, the body we call "criminals is not like some species you can extinguish. It's an aribitrary category. Criminals today were good citizens yesterday.

Simple concept? Sure is. Way TOO simple.

I don't expect to make them go extinct, I expect it would shorten their criminal careers substantially and reduce the numbers of their victims and save money on warehousing them. People are going to screw up, under my plan they just wouldn't be allowed to make a long term habit of it.

The facts show that gun-free zones = VICTIM ZONES and where guns are prevelant, peace reigns. In fact, statistics show that when conceal carry laws are enacted, even simple confrontations such as fist-fights plummet because people are not so bold when they know other people might have a gun on them.

When have ever you ever seen a "Sandy Hook" at a police station? It's never happened and it never will. I'm aware of one situation where a maniac decided to walk into a police station and open fire. The results? One dead bad guy, all officers alive and well.

As always, the facts show just how ignorant Dumbocrats are...

 

[kaz]

"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?

"Name calling"??

Look It, you parade around in a dress and then wet your pants when I logically use the pronoun "she" and then refuse to state at all what your fucking gender is, that makes you an "It". You don't like it, It, then figure out what your own damn sex is and stop hiding behind a dress, asshole.

Does that 8 year old crap really work on anyone? I mean for real, not in your head. You are the terror of the playground though. Toddlers quake in fear when they see you opening the gate and stepping into the sand box because they know a real scathing tirade is about to come.

 

[kaz]

A national database accessible by all law enforcement.

Every assault weapon comes with a pink slip -- you sell it, the new owner has to pass a background check.

Every gun recovered at a crime should be traceable back to an owner.


Once we identity who is selling guns or moving guns into the black market, then we arrest them.

The black market dries up, it becomes harder from criminals to get guns, the price of black market guns goes way up.

Of course, paranoid gun nutters think there's going to be a gun 'grab' and they fight any national gun database like maniacs.

There is a small but loud sector of gun ownership that is definitely a cult.

Suppose for a moment that this all worked with the domestic supply of guns. Then they start bringing any of the millions of guns in the rest of the world across the border and selling them and as well foreign gun manufacturers ramp up production to bring more. Oops, your plan is dead in the water.

The fallacy that leftists all employ with your plans is that you think that criminals won't ... wait for it ... break the law to buy guns. Your plans are all based on that honest citizens will follow the law, like getting your pink slip. Then you assume that bam, the CRIMINALS won't get the guns!

And you didn't answer the fundamental question from the OP. Why will your plan work when any high schooler can get all the pot they want? There are millions of guns in circulation in the US, outside the US. The technology is not hard. There are manufacturers in and OUTSIDE the US. Many leftists even mock conservatives for even trying to ban pot because it'll never work. But then guns? The pot solution will work, because you want it to now! And like conservatives ignore pot laws are not working, you ignore gun laws are not working. Neither work, neither will work, you both need to grow up.

 

[Wildman]

Think about it.

"Think about it."..,

awwww come on, don't you know liberals are incapable of "THINKING" ??

read and listen to them, all they know is "FEEEEEL"

 

[kaz]

Last, when you find the passage in the Heller ruling where Justice Scalia explains that the Second Amendment right is unlimited and not subject to government restrictions, get back to us.

Gays can marry the exact same things as straights can, yet you find that unfair because they don't want to marry the same people, so you word parse and out pops a new Constitutional amendment that they didn't mean and didn't write.

Yet with guns, it actually says "shall not be infringed," but you don't want that, so now a right that can't be infringed is limited and subject to government restrictions.

Are other rights, like the right of a free press, the right to free speech, the right to religious freedom, protection from search and seizure also limited and subject to government regulations, or just guns?

Be honest, you don't care what the Constitution says. You just transactionally pick a position then justify it the best way you can. Sometimes that means reading rights that aren't there (gay marriage, abortion), sometimes it means ignoring rights that are there (shall not be infringed), sometimes it means ignoring entire amendments (the 9th and 10th). What ever it takes to get your way.

And I am not like you. I am for example pro-choice, but I recognize that word parsing the Constitution and usurping State rights is a far greater threat to my liberty than allowing States to make their own choices where the Constitution doesn't afford the Federal government authority.

 

[Wildman]

Every assault weapon comes with a pink slip --

there is NO such thing as an "assault weapon", if you are referring to military grade full auto firearms, a $200.00 tax stamp required for any select fire weapon, go here for the info on "assault weapons", Firearms - Guides - Identification of Firearms | ATFhttp://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.htmlhttp://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

just for your education, machine guns, silencers, and select fire weapons are NOT illegal to own, a person just has to jump thru the .gov requirements and regulations plus $12,000.00+ and BINGO !! you can own just about any weapon/firearm one wants..., even a Sherman tank...., if one has the $$$$$$$$$ to shell out.

 

[kaz]

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

With the understanding that the states also have the power to not license those who want to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm, as such measures would be in violation of those states’ constitutions, and likely the Federal Constitution.

Only if the courts decide licensing would violate the Second Amendment. I'm of the opinion licensing does not infringe the right to own arms. The laws already allow restrictions on some citizens from own, possessing or having in their custody and control guns, and allowing the states to police their duty to protect their citizens seems reasonable.

Suppose to be protected from illegal search and seizure, you need to register, show ID and buy a license?

Suppose to vote you have to get a free ID? The right to vote isn't even in the Constitution...

 

[kaz]

Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.

or to vote.

Last time I looked no one every got killed by a welfare check or a vote.

Welfare check: So government stealing isn't adequate to protect our rights, someone needs to get killed. Got it.

Voting: Now you're really clueless, have you not followed the news and all the people getting killed in foreign wars by the people both you and your mortal enemy the Republicans elected?

 

[kaz]

"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?

"Name calling"??

Look It, you parade around in a dress and then wet your pants when I logically use the pronoun "she" and then refuse to state at all what your fucking gender is, that makes you an "It". You don't like it, It, then figure out what your own damn sex is and stop hiding behind a dress, asshole.

Do your parents know what you're doing on the internet? I guess the good side is we know with your lack of interest in hot girls that you're not surfing for porn...