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

[kaz]

The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?

So, you admit that the current gun control laws don't work. Obviously an accident, because it puts you on the correct side. Now, do YOU have anything else?

I'm asking NRA/gun yahoos if they even have a plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands.

And ya, I have something: stop selling bullets. There's no constitutional protection for bullets.

I answered this question. Read the OP. We CANNOT keep guns out of criminals hands. Our position is people should be allowed to defend themselves.

And again you are committing the routine leftists fallacy of if we don't want your socialist government solution, we need to think of an alternate socialist government solution. We support a liberty solution.

And your argument that bullets are not covered by the 2nd amendment is well into retarded, of course they are.

 

[kaz]

I don't even know what that means.

What I have is that gun laws don't work, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We follow the Constitution and allow people to protect themselves, win-win. Now we don't follow the Constitution, we don't allow people to defend themselves, and every time there is a mass shooting no one is shooting back because the victims followed the law and the criminal didn't.

How that is having "nothing" is for you to explain.

The reason you "have nothing" is because he/she/it is too stupid to understand what's being said. Honestly, I feel he/she/it has nothing to contribute to a discussion and therefore isn't worth reading.

What are you talking about? Who is he/she/it? And apparently as I keep providing you content to your hand waving that you continue to ignore, he/she it is not the one who is too stupid to contribute to the discussion. What about addressing the points I keep making to your vapor arguments?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

One clarification here. As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.

Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.

I was happy, then sad. How is a private business "open to the public" not private property? How can you morally, legally or ethically tell someone what rules they must follow on their own property? I'm totally for following the second amendment, which say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, by government, you have me there. It's that you're saying people don't have the right to determine the rules on their own property rights that I find objectionable.

I'm saying what I would do. But the reality is the government is already telling private business owners what they can or cannot do. I haven't heard you rail against that.

In my opinion any place that is open to the public shouldn't have rules that interfere with anyone's Constitutional right.

 

[hunarcy]

I don't even know what that means.

What I have is that gun laws don't work, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We follow the Constitution and allow people to protect themselves, win-win. Now we don't follow the Constitution, we don't allow people to defend themselves, and every time there is a mass shooting no one is shooting back because the victims followed the law and the criminal didn't.

How that is having "nothing" is for you to explain.

The reason you "have nothing" is because he/she/it is too stupid to understand what's being said. Honestly, I feel he/she/it has nothing to contribute to a discussion and therefore isn't worth reading.

What are you talking about? Who is he/she/it? And apparently as I keep providing you content to your hand waving that you continue to ignore, he/she it is not the one who is too stupid to contribute to the discussion. What about addressing the points I keep making to your vapor arguments?

He/she/it is Bumberclyde who has repeatedly shown that he is not here to debate but is here to talk nonsense and distract. I have come to the conclusion that Bumberclyde must be a "timesuck troll" whose goal is to tie people up in circular arguments...as he/she/it seems to be trying to do with you.

 

[dannyboys]

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.

Ah. 'From the mouth of babes'. You got it in one. The world IS one big game of cowboys and indians. The cowboys and Indians are just called something different case by case.
Time for some facts: (Not that some of you are sentient enough to understand them)
How do the simians get illegal hand guns?
In fact there are not that many 'fresh illegal hand guns on the market in any inner city at any given time.
Here's some plain and hopefully simple questions for you all about an illegal 'fresh' meaning outside the area enters say downtown Detroit.
Where did the hand gun come from?
It came from someone who bought the gun from some one who stole it or traded it for crack or meth from a simian in Chicagoland.
The only illegal hand guns that are taken out of the inner city are by the cops. In many cases those guns are put into an evidence locker and forgotten about. The always 'bent' cops eventually steal the guns and they end up being sold and they are taken to another city to be traded for drugs mostly.
The hilarious part is some guns have seen more cities in the last decade then Dianna Ross and the Supremes did.
The idea that the guns are 'straw purchased' from gun shows is a bit of a myth. Yes it happens but the undercover cops have infiltrated this whole scene and they know when every straw purchaser takes a leak. The cops have been known to put tiny GPS's under the cheeks plates.
This means what? 99% of the guns in any inner city haven't been fired in years. 99.9% of the guns come with full clips that frankly the simians who get their paws on them are too shit scared to try to play with. Some that do end up shooting 'baby-mamma' by accident.
It's hilarious when you think about it.
So bottom line: You are fifteen. You must buy some 'street cred' (you aren't capable of earning it) so you steal something from your cousin to buy a hand gun for fifty bucks. You've never even held a gun let alone know how to fire it but it definitely puts a 'bulge' in your 'poopy pants'.
Then you need money for dope so you sell/trade the gun to Jamel.
Tens of thousands of illegal hand guns are the 'currency' among gang-bangers.....that and pimping out their twelve year old sisters.
The guns move from city to city young Black man to young Black man.
Sure a couple of dozen need to be injected onto the streets per week in the country b/c some simian shot his cousin over a pair of Nikes but the number of illegal stolen hand guns from your average B&E in the suburbs isn't that many. Most legal gun owners in the suburbs are smart enough to make sure their guns are never stolen.

 

[kaz]

Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.

I was happy, then sad. How is a private business "open to the public" not private property? How can you morally, legally or ethically tell someone what rules they must follow on their own property? I'm totally for following the second amendment, which say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, by government, you have me there. It's that you're saying people don't have the right to determine the rules on their own property rights that I find objectionable.

I'm saying what I would do. But the reality is the government is already telling private business owners what they can or cannot do. I haven't heard you rail against that.

Wow, then you haven't been reading my posts. I can't think of many discussions I am in where I am not railing against government overstepping their authority. My avatar is the Statue of Liberty. Well, now a woman dressed up as her. That's like my whole gig, dude.

In my opinion any place that is open to the public shouldn't have rules that interfere with anyone's Constitutional right.

So I open a business (I am a business owner by the way), and it's not my property rights to state the rules for my customers or other people from the public who come here? That's a job for the government to do? Seriously?

 

[kaz]

The reason you "have nothing" is because he/she/it is too stupid to understand what's being said. Honestly, I feel he/she/it has nothing to contribute to a discussion and therefore isn't worth reading.

What are you talking about? Who is he/she/it? And apparently as I keep providing you content to your hand waving that you continue to ignore, he/she it is not the one who is too stupid to contribute to the discussion. What about addressing the points I keep making to your vapor arguments?

He/she/it is Bumberclyde who has repeatedly shown that he is not here to debate but is here to talk nonsense and distract. I have come to the conclusion that Bumberclyde must be a "timesuck troll" whose goal is to tie people up in circular arguments...as he/she/it seems to be trying to do with you.

You could be right, but I don't think you're providing a lot of content behind that opinion. In fact, I have provided content in responding to you and you haven't addressed that either. I am the OP you know.

 

[hunarcy]

You could be right, but I don't think you're providing a lot of content behind that opinion. In fact, I have provided content in responding to you and you haven't addressed that either. I am the OP you know.

What content have you provided in response to me that I haven't addressed? And, please remember that content that's agreeable need not be challenged.

 

[kaz]

You could be right, but I don't think you're providing a lot of content behind that opinion. In fact, I have provided content in responding to you and you haven't addressed that either. I am the OP you know.

What content have you provided in response to me that I haven't addressed? And, please remember that content that's agreeable need not be challenged.

OK, fair enough. With the last point I'll just assume you were agreeing. Just as a tip though, while I agree that you don't need to expand on why you agree, just giving a hint would cut down on the confusion.

 

[hunarcy]

You could be right, but I don't think you're providing a lot of content behind that opinion. In fact, I have provided content in responding to you and you haven't addressed that either. I am the OP you know.

What content have you provided in response to me that I haven't addressed? And, please remember that content that's agreeable need not be challenged.

OK, fair enough. With the last point I'll just assume you were agreeing. Just as a tip though, while I agree that you don't need to expand on why you agree, just giving a hint would cut down on the confusion.

I'm not shy about pointing out where I disagree. What may have confused things is that I was dealing with the bumbler guy on two related threads and realized what his tactics revealed on the other thread. So, when I got here, I didn't have the patience I should have had to explain my reasoning. I'll fall on my sword for this one.

 

[kaz]

What content have you provided in response to me that I haven't addressed? And, please remember that content that's agreeable need not be challenged.

OK, fair enough. With the last point I'll just assume you were agreeing. Just as a tip though, while I agree that you don't need to expand on why you agree, just giving a hint would cut down on the confusion.

I'm not shy about pointing out where I disagree. What may have confused things is that I was dealing with the bumbler guy on two related threads and realized what his tactics revealed on the other thread. So, when I got here, I didn't have the patience I should have had to explain my reasoning. I'll fall on my sword for this one.

We're good

 

[P@triot]

Ban "gun free" zones for starters

One clarification here. As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.

Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.

I fiercely disagree here LL. If a person owns a business, who are we to tell them what they can and can't do with that business? If the owner is an idiot liberal (not likely to happen anyway considering how dumb liberals are) who wants to ban guns and create a victim zone, that's there business. You and I have the freedom to not patron that victim zone (and we won't). Furthermore, those are the places which will experience the mass shootings and they will be put out of business from that anyway.

You don't have to hang Dumbocrats LL - just give them the freedom to hang themselves. It's just like here on USMB. They have the freedom to speak and all they do is expose their ignorance and contradict themselves. Not only would we be doing them a favor by silencing them, but we'd be despicable hypocrites like them. The freedom we scream about includes their freedom as well. And the beauty of freedom is that it allows idiots such as Dumbocrats to implode.

 

[Whig_Out]

One clarification here. As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.

Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.

I fiercely disagree here LL. If a person owns a business, who are we to tell them what they can and can't do with that business? If the owner is an idiot liberal (not likely to happen anyway considering how dumb liberals are) who wants to ban guns and create a victim zone, that's there business. You and I have the freedom to not patron that victim zone (and we won't). Furthermore, those are the places which will experience the mass shootings and they will be put out of business from that anyway.

You don't have to hang Dumbocrats LL - just give them the freedom to hang themselves. It's just like here on USMB. They have the freedom to speak and all they do is expose their ignorance and contradict themselves. Not only would we be doing them a favor by silencing them, but we'd be despicable hypocrites like them. The freedom we scream about includes their freedom as well. And the beauty of freedom is that it allows idiots such as Dumbocrats to implode.

Oh shit, fiercely disagrees on an internet forum. World changer here! And a creative one with words like "Dumbocrats". What a guy, what a tough manly man of a man!

 

[Whig_Out]

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.

Everyone should praise this poster. Only person who can use Jesus and Dumbocrats in the same sentence and make it look classy. What a friend.

 

[candycorn]

Oh the density...

Nice! Been there; done that.

As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...

You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down. Eventually the availability dries up.

Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.

Because cigarettes have dried up?!?!

Usage is down. 332-206.

Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!

You make it a federal crime (no parole) for any crime involving a gun. You rob a 7-Eleven with a gun, federal crime. You tell the cashier you have a gun but don't brandish it; federal crime. You're gone for the full 10 years or whatever. Murder doesn't have to be involved.

332-206.

 

[candycorn]

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.

We have far more guns than any other society on earth but instead of having no crime, we are among the most violent of all advanced societies.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Its the only page in Rotten's playbook; take the other side's argument to the ridiculous extreme. See it coming a mile away.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Dressing them in Kevlar school uniforms...

Look at the Middle East....the answer to violence is NEVER more violence. It's a 2,000 year old example

 

[OKTexas]

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.

We have far more guns than any other society on earth but instead of having no crime, we are among the most violent of all advanced societies.

Violence has nothing to do with guns, it is people who have no value for the lives and property of others. Guns are nothing but tools, just like hammers and screwdrivers, all can do good things and all can kill. People like you make me want to go out and buy a few more guns.

 

[candycorn]

We have far more guns than any other society on earth but instead of having no crime, we are among the most violent of all advanced societies.

Violence has nothing to do with guns, it is people who have no value for the lives and property of others. Guns are nothing but tools, just like hammers and screwdrivers, all can do good things and all can kill. People like you make me want to go out and buy a few more guns.

For once you're right.

Guns have nothing to do with preventing violence.