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

[JoeB131]

Do you think there should be restrictions on owning guns in the United States?


Minor restrictions 36%

Major restrictions 34%

No restrictions 14%

Make all guns illegal 14%

Considering you need 66% of congress and 75% of the states to get "major restrictions" those numbers mean squat.

And again, polls are useless, because the way you ask the question contributes to the answer.

Again- ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE- and the Second is about Militias again.

Then you'd better be worried about polls.

 

[martybegan]

[

Polls mean nothing. Votes mean something, and the voters in most places throw gun grabbers out on thier asses. Colorado, for example.

Two backwater CO districts in an off-year election is not "most places".

How about this. Why don't we put all the proposed gun restrictions on a national ballot, and see what gun ownership actually looks like afterwards.

Both sides agree to abide by the results for 10 years.

To have that work any restriction would need 75% of the vote to pass, that pesky consitution.

Good luck with that.

 

[martybegan]

Do you think there should be restrictions on owning guns in the United States?


Minor restrictions 36%

Major restrictions 34%

No restrictions 14%

Make all guns illegal 14%

Considering you need 66% of congress and 75% of the states to get "major restrictions" those numbers mean squat.

And again, polls are useless, because the way you ask the question contributes to the answer.

Again- ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE- and the Second is about Militias again.

Then you'd better be worried about polls.

Do you jack off at night over the thought of 5 out of 9 people lording over your daily life, and deciding what is your right, and what is it?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I think it's you that are mising what you're missing. Doesn't everybody who kills someone know killing someone is illegal? The point is for some types of behavior, legality is of no consequence to someone. People who kill people don't care that killing peope is illegal, which is obviously a far more agregious offense than owning a gun, ergo people who kill people also don't care that owning a gun is illegal, ergo more gun laws aren't likely to prevent more gun crime. Get it yet?

Yes! So you're saying crimes and the punishments that come along with them aren't needed because criminals will commit crimes anyway and nothing will change that.

Thanks for repeating what I said verbatim. Does that only apply to guns or is that across the board for Molesters, Murderers, rapist etc? Or just guns?

KAZZ?!?! Where you at buddy?

Probably lots of things, but it ultimately comes down to the individual. If you're in a state of mind to even contemplate murder or rape your mind is probably in no condition to ponder the ramifications of those actions. You could even go to less agregeous crimes like smoking weed. Though it doesn't matter because violence with guns are what we're concerned with here. Laws are enacted to have punishments for breaking them. Whether it is also a deterent to committing that crime is inversely related to it's severity. That is the more sever the crime the less likely the punishment for committing it is likely to deter someone from committing it.

That's what I said but some people here believe that despite human behavior, they believe people will not care about the punishment no matter how harsh it is because...ummmm...they are criminals derp! And Criminals don't display human behaviors...or something

I still want to know that since crimes don't deter people then why have any laws in the first place? That cant seem to be answered but we all know that punishment deters the crime but they like to play pretend

 

[Bern80]

I like your idea about punishment.

We have a bigger problem than that though... What's your idea?

Yes we do. One that doesn't come even close to being addressed by getting rid of guns.

Well, let's hear your idea.

How about we start addressing why some of our young people are so depressed they feel the need to shoout up their fellow class mates. In general, how about we focus on the people and their poblems, rather than the objects they use to hurt people.

 

[Bern80]

.

I've sifted through a few pages on this thread and I've seen a lot of deflection and vague insults, some of the traditional name-calling, but I'm not quite sure I've encountered a clear plan.

Is there a plan? And if so, please include how you intend on getting out of the hands of criminals, precisely, thanks.

.

1) Complete and thorough background checks.
2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
4) Required insurance for gun ownership.

To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?

 

[KGB]

yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??

Criminals have guns because everyone else does.

Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.

Did Prohibition work back in the 20s?

 

[Bern80]

yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??

Criminals have guns because everyone else does.

Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.

You really are delusional. You realize no one in the U.S. is allowed to have cocaine either, right?

 

[KGB]

There are no rights, only privilages.

One less knuckledragger on the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment is about Militias again.

pretty sure the first 10 Amendments disagree with this stupid statement....

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Oh & the 2nd Amendment is about security of a free state, militias were merely the vehicle of the time. The right to bear arms was always an individual right & upheld by the Heller decision....

 

[Bern80]

[

Apply three personal references to your right to free speech then.

A right is a right, and is not dependent on finding people who like you. Also it allows discretion on the part of the government who can then just choose to disallow you your right because they feel like it.

And, as always, go fuck yourself.

There are no rights, only privilages.

One less knuckledragger on the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment is about Militias again.

You're batting about 1000 on the incorrect inofrmation front. Yes we do have rights in this country. Our government does not bestow priviledges upon us. The Constitution is essentially the priviledges our government has, not it's citizens. And the 2nd ammendment, if you read some of your federalist papers, was written with the intent that people have a means to defend against tyranny.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??

Criminals have guns because everyone else does.

Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.

Ya cause that works in England, Mexico, South Africa, Russia and everywhere else right?

 

[martybegan]

[

Apply three personal references to your right to free speech then.

A right is a right, and is not dependent on finding people who like you. Also it allows discretion on the part of the government who can then just choose to disallow you your right because they feel like it.

And, as always, go fuck yourself.

There are no rights, only privilages.

One less knuckledragger on the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment is about Militias again.

You're batting about 1000 on the incorrect inofrmation front. Yes we do have rights in this country. Our government does not bestow priviledges upon us. The Constitution is essentially the priviledges our government has, not it's citizens. And the 2nd ammendment, if you read some of your federalist papers, was written with the intent that people have a means to defend against tyranny.

Its simple to understand Joe's viewpoint if you know where he thinks power comes from.

For Joe, power flows from the people as a whole, represented by government, and flows down to the individual. Thus individuals are only granted what the people as a whole want them to have (i.e. the government tells you what to do)

For true followers of our consitution, power flows from the people as individuals UP to the government, and the people as individuals grant some powers to the government, while retaining others (i.e. rights). Thus it is the government that is GRANTED powers by the people, and is thus limited to what the PEOPLE allow it.

Joe is simply an authoritarian.

 

[candycorn]

Yes we do. One that doesn't come even close to being addressed by getting rid of guns.

Well, let's hear your idea.

How about we start addressing why some of our young people are so depressed they feel the need to shoout up their fellow class mates. In general, how about we focus on the people and their poblems, rather than the objects they use to hurt people.

So increase public health funding? Some republicans want to kill such programs.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The repubs are yanking their own crank when Joe showed up saying take the guns. Repubs are like "FINALLY I can use my Talking Points again!"

 

[Missourian]

Good to know you have a plan...whatever it is. Someday.

So you understand gun control can't prevent this crime either...got it.

If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.

So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.

I've already explained why that won't fly...using a tax as a punitive measure to deny a citizen a right is unconstitutional.

As in "Shall not be infringed" by a punitive government tax.

It would also violate the equal protection cause...rich folks would have greater access than poor folks solely based on a government policy.

There is not a chance on earth this would pass constitutional muster.

 

[Missourian]

So you understand gun control can't prevent this crime either...got it.

If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.

So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.

Doesn't the gun owner have the gun to keep from being robbed/killed? If it doesn't work then maybe he shouldn't have it in the first place.

It was a she, and the killer was her son.

That the owner was a mother and perhaps had a blind spot where considering a child that she loved might kill her is concerned is no reflection on gun ownership.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The repubs are yanking their own crank when Joe showed up saying take the guns. Repubs are like "FINALLY I can use my Talking Points again!"

You claimed gun control laws worked and when I pointed out they clearly do not you failed to respond, did you think I would forget?

 

[Missourian]

We keep getting the same canned answers spoon fed to the posters by their anti-gun masters.

These guys went through background checks.

Cho, Joker, Loughner, Alexis.

Every one of them PASS a NICS federal background check.

Registration??? WTF?

We KNOW who bought the guns. We know because they were background checked.

We have Closed Caption running around waving her hands above her head yelling "I don't know what to do, BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!"

That's the absolutely WORST solution.

I'm no liberal, but I'll tell you my plan.

Background check for private sales of handguns and semi-automatic centerfire long guns.

(I realize you gun grabbers likely have no idea what this means...look it up and educate yourselves.)

But NOT the same background check protocol as new purchases.

I should be able to call in myself give a persons name and get a background check and a confirmation number...I'll be responsible for the information gathering and the record keeping.

I'll get a signed bill of sale that I sold John Q. Smith of 1234 Frame St. my Ruger SR9C serial number 1234567890 on such and such date and here is the confirmation number of the background check.

If I choose, I can turn that information over to my local Sheriffs department and be absolved of the burden of record keeping or I can keep in in a file locked up with my firearms.

If the gun is used in a crime and the police come looking for it, there is a paper trail.

But you aren't required to give the serial number of the firearm as part of the background check.


Everyone's main concerns are addressed.

Handguns, the major contributor to gun crime and gun violence are being background checked, and legal gun owners can still trade hunting rifles and shotguns without government looking over their shoulders.

^Not a single question, comment or criticism on this post?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We keep getting the same canned answers spoon fed to the posters by their anti-gun masters.

These guys went through background checks.

Cho, Joker, Loughner, Alexis.

Every one of them PASS a NICS federal background check.

Registration??? WTF?

We KNOW who bought the guns. We know because they were background checked.

We have Closed Caption running around waving her hands above her head yelling "I don't know what to do, BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!"

That's the absolutely WORST solution.

I'm no liberal, but I'll tell you my plan.

Background check for private sales of handguns and semi-automatic centerfire long guns.

(I realize you gun grabbers likely have no idea what this means...look it up and educate yourselves.)

But NOT the same background check protocol as new purchases.

I should be able to call in myself give a persons name and get a background check and a confirmation number...I'll be responsible for the information gathering and the record keeping.

I'll get a signed bill of sale that I sold John Q. Smith of 1234 Frame St. my Ruger SR9C serial number 1234567890 on such and such date and here is the confirmation number of the background check.

If I choose, I can turn that information over to my local Sheriffs department and be absolved of the burden of record keeping or I can keep in in a file locked up with my firearms.

If the gun is used in a crime and the police come looking for it, there is a paper trail.

But you aren't required to give the serial number of the firearm as part of the background check.


Everyone's main concerns are addressed.

Handguns, the major contributor to gun crime and gun violence are being background checked, and legal gun owners can still trade hunting rifles and shotguns without government looking over their shoulders.

^Not a single question, comment or criticism on this post?

They aren't interested in sensible laws. they want to ban weapons and only those steps that advance that cause will be considered.

 

[Missourian]

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.

80% of gun murders are committed by people killing people they know.

I don't worry so much about the "Criminals" as much as I do the vast majority of you drooling idiots who have neither the training or judgement to own a gun.

Do you have a link to this...I am having trouble corroborating this percentage.