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

[kaz]

.

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.

That's how you keep honest people from having guns, the question is how do we keep CRIMINALS from getting guns?

And specifically, address how since any high school kid will tell you they can get all the pot they want, how are you going to keep criminals from getting guns?

There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world, and it's not rocket science to make them. That's why you can't address the question, because you have no answer.

 

[kaz]

[

So, the plan for getting guns out of the hands of criminals...?

.

Get them out of the hands of everyone else.

Simple enough.

Pot is completely illegal. Yet it's everywhere. Stop dodging and explain why the same wouldn't happen with guns. Here you go. You make guns illegal, then... and it doesn't work with pot because...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Found this link The Spokesman-Review - Google News Archive Search it is a horrible page thingy.

 

[kaz]

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!"

Finally, you can go back to what you're repeating from MS-NBC, back to your comfort zone.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I disagree; here is why.

We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns. For better or worse; that will never change. Nothing says they have to be cheap.

It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.

Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc... and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.

Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation. It will take a very long time but it will work.

 

[Missourian]

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.

#2 just as soon as say car manufacturers are held financially responsible for car accidents by all drivers.

#4 is unconstitutional as well, ever hear of a poll tax?

Actually, all car owners are ALREADY required to get insurance in most states. so that isn't even an argument.

Car manufacturers ARE held responsible for accidents caused by bad designs.

I think that when you hold the gun store responsible for selling a shotgun to Aaron Alexis after he failed to pass a test for a rifle or handgun, there really ought to be some responsibility there.

Gun manufacturers are held to that standard as well Joe.

RSG said "When car manufacturers are held responsible for car accidents"

The second part about Alexis is a total lie on your part.

THERE IS ONLY ONE BACKGROUND CHECK.

If you pass it for a shotgun, you passed it for a handgun or an AR-15.

Alexis didn't attempt to buy anything else.

Why lie? I have personally correct this when you posted it before.

It destroys your credibility.

No one believes a liar.

Aaron Alexis passed Federal Bureau Investigation and Virginia state background checks to purchase a shotgun from Sharpshooters Small Arms Range in Lorton, Va., over the weekend.


Alexis did not attempt to purchase a rifle or handgun from the store, The Washington Times has learned exclusively.

Read more: MILLER: Aaron Alexis passed two background checks, bought shotgun from Sharpshooters in Lorton, Va. - Washington Times​

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...passed-two-background-checks-b/#ixzz2fpDvBKD0​

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...passed-two-background-checks-b/#ixzz2fpDvBKD0

​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then there is this The Misleading Murderer that you Know

Which debunks the 80 percent.

 

[Steven_R]

Here's a guy who built an AK-47 in his garage out of a shovel. DIY: Shovel AK - photo tsunami warning!

Remind me how laws restricting gun ownership will get guns out of circulation...

 

[candycorn]

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.

Make it not punitive; as for "not a chance on earth", I seem to remember that being said about Obamacare--by me in fact.

 

[kaz]

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.

A year ago I'd have said the same about government requiring citizens to buy a product from a private company. A few years ago, I'd have said the same about government using eminent domain to take property from citizens and giving it to a private company. A decade ago, I'd have said the same about congress regulating political speech leading into elections.

Sadly that line of defense is gone.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

I disagree; here is why.

We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns. For better or worse; that will never change. Nothing says they have to be cheap.

It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.

Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc... and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.

Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation. It will take a very long time but it will work.

And you would be wrong, Voting which is NOT a protected right can not be taxed it is an infringement according to the Courts. Thus a protected right can not be singled out for punitive taxation either.

 

[kaz]

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.

Make it not punitive; as for "not a chance on earth", I seem to remember that being said about Obamacare--by me in fact.

Suppose socons don't outlaw abortion, they just put a $100,000 tax on it?

 

[martybegan]

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.

I disagree; here is why.

We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns. For better or worse; that will never change. Nothing says they have to be cheap.

It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.

Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc... and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.

Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation. It will take a very long time but it will work.

So basically stigmatize the ability to defend youself, and be a bitch of the state?

No thank you. Also, cigarettes are not a right, gun ownership is, and is just as important as any of our other rights.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Kaz Buddy! You missed so Much!! Did you go back and read pal?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Kaz Buddy! You missed so Much!! Did you go back and read pal?

Still ignoring me I see, you STATED Gun control laws worked, I listed 3 cities and 4 Countries where it does NOT work. You ignored those posts.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Not exactly. My point is we address the real issue. The people that use guns to commit these violent acts. How that should be addressed and paid for is a seperate discussion.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Kaz Buddy! You missed so Much!! Did you go back and read pal?

Still ignoring me I see, you STATED Gun control laws worked, I listed 3 cities and 4 Countries where it does NOT work. You ignored those posts.

No you showed where gun crime still happens. That's all. Crashes still happen but we have traffic lights idiot. Has gun crime been reduced is the question. You ignore it because you have too

 

[Missourian]

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.

Make it not punitive; as for "not a chance on earth", I seem to remember that being said about Obamacare--by me in fact.

Well, if certainly makes the push for private party background checks make more sense.

Can't tax a transaction that the government isn't aware of.

 

[Steven_R]

Is suspect if private sales are outlawed there will be a lot more reports of gun thefts. "Heck no, I didn't sell my rifles. Someone broke in my house and stile my shit. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket."

 

[Bern80]

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?

Again the only part I have an issue with is holding the seller responsible for the actions of someone that commits a crime with a gun. For that to be a reasonable course of action it should be applicable to other contexts. But it's not. We don't hold the prior owner of a car responsible if the person who buys it from kills someone drunk driving.