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

[kaz]

So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals. They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes. Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they? hmmmmm

Wow, so in the Wasthington Navy Yard, Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, if they had security systems and safes, they wouldn't have needed a gun? Women who are gunned down by their estranged husbands, people who own or work at liquor stores that are robbed, people who are robbed on the street, they just need security systems and safes and they are safe? If your home is broken into, instead of having a gun, you just wait with the criminals until the cops get there with guns and you don't need a gun! Maybe the criminals will play cards with you while you wait.

I see why you call yourself the brain. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

 

[kaz]

Pretty close to the number of cars that were stolen. Criminals steal everything, what conclusion do you draw from this exactly?

Well if we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals this seems like a pretty important fact. 232,400 per year are stolen? I thought people keep these things to avoid being criminalized? Doesn't seem like it could be working very well to me. So gun companies make guns, people buy guns to keep criminals away, criminals then steal these guns from the people, people buy more guns... Quite the circle it is, I bet the NRA doesn't talk about this one.

So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals. They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes. Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they? hmmmmm

My RIGHT to own firearms is not up for debate. And it is an infringement on that right to make security systems a requirement for ownership.

Liberals make up rights that are not in the Constitution, including the right to health care, the right to free birth control, the right to have your rights read to you, the right for government to take property from one citizen to another, the right to gay marriage, the right to an abortion, the right for government to restrict Christianity and Judaism, the right for government to confiscate money and redistribute it, the right to use the military for non-defensive purposes, the right for the President and Supreme Court to bypass the legislature and create and modify legislation, ...

But rights that are actually there, those are negotiable.

 

[kaz]

Well if we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals this seems like a pretty important fact. 232,400 per year are stolen? I thought people keep these things to avoid being criminalized? Doesn't seem like it could be working very well to me. So gun companies make guns, people buy guns to keep criminals away, criminals then steal these guns from the people, people buy more guns... Quite the circle it is, I bet the NRA doesn't talk about this one.

So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals. They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes. Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they? hmmmmm

My RIGHT to own firearms is not up for debate. And it is an infringement on that right to make security systems a requirement for ownership.

So Republicans are for irresponsible gun ownership. I get it now. I'm not so sure you guys really want to do anything about crime. hmmmm Does it perhaps benefit your little paranoid gun movement? Could be.

Do you only support the right to responsible free speech, freedom of religion, right to an abortion, protection from warrant-less search and seizures, right to a trial? Or are they actually rights?

 

[kaz]

Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats can proclaim something a "right" which is not a right (healthcare) and deny things that actually are rights (1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment, etc.).

Isn't it amazing how some people find it more important to own a gun that worry about their health...

Swish. Our view of how important something is would be measured by how much we want government to provide it for us????



Dude, it's the reverse. The more we love it, the more we want government OUT of it. BTW, we want government out of both.

 

[P@triot]

Cars have a purpose other than death. They are called accidents for a reason. Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose. Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.

A guns only purpose is to kill? Really? Then how do you explain that the Secret Service surrounds the president with a wicked arsenal of fully automatic weapons?!? If a gun's only purpose is to kill, isn't your president in mortal danger right now? And why aren't you demanding that the Secret Service disarm [MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION]?

Furthermore, I thought you "cared" about human life? If that's true, then you wouldn't care about the "intent" of the cause of the death - you'd only care about stopping it. If it's not true, and you don't care about human life, then you are despicable piece of shit for pretending to care in order to further an irrational agenda.

So which is it junior?

You sure have a skill at wording things stupidly. What do you think would happen if the secret service fired those guns? Death of course. I'll just repeat myself since nothing you said changes it:
Cars have a purpose other than death. They are called accidents for a reason. Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose. Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.

So then the Secret Service are just trained assassins then, right? Because they are heavily armed 24x7 and if a guns "only purpose" is to "kill", then the Secret Service exists only to kill. And in which case, the president should be in mortal danger right now. So why aren't you panic-stricken and calling for the Secret Service to be immediately disarmed?

How does it feel being my bitch on USMB? I'm taking your irrational argument and exposing it for the ignorant drivel that it is.

A gun exist for one purpose and one purpose ONLY - security. A gun creates peace. Evil doesn't fuck with armed people. Evil fucks with unarmed, helpless sheep. That's why Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook elementary and not a police station (or the White House), stupid. Because he knew there were unarmed victims at Sandy Hook just waiting for him.

Come on stupid - tell us again how guns are only for "killing". Everyone is laughing at your idiocy....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I didn't say take guns from those people. Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.

Try another lame ass tactic.

Strawman comeback.

It's not a strawman you idiot.

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.

That's a fact!

 

[P@triot]

Cars have a purpose other than death. They are called accidents for a reason. Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose. Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.

Nonsense. In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting. This has been well covered.

It's also irrelevant. You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.

Yes the comparison is complete nonsense. Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative. Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative. The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse. If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected. The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them. But they need a good doctor, not a gun.

Brainless continues to illustrate is stupidity to the world. There were no cars in the 1800's, the 1700's, the 1600's, the 1500's, the....well, you get the point. And the world did NOT "collapse". Furthermore, the Amish operate without automobiles every day and they are thriving.

The only thing that is going to cause the world to "collapse" is ignorant Dumbocrat marxist policy.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I didn't say take guns from those people. Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.

Try another lame ass tactic.

Your side always brings up automobiles. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is.

The topic isn't about automobiles and bringing automobiles up is what's ridiculous.

I'm on the side of the Constitution, I guess that puts you on the opposing side.

 

[P@triot]

Isn't it amazing how some people find it more important to own a gun that worry about their health...

A gun is what keeps me "healthy".

Nobody had a gun at Sandy Hook elementary thanks to idiot Dumbocrats. How did that work out? Oh, that's right, a slaughter of innocent children.

Why don't you people demand that the Secret Service disarm? Oh, that's right, because being armed keeps the president safe.

Fuck'n moron....

Sandy hook shooter got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner. You think more people providing guns to criminals is the answer?

No - I think having more armed (and well trained) law-abiding citizens is the answer. But hey, keep providing a false narrative that I want "more criminals with guns" because you've had your ass handed to you with facts. It only proves your immaturity and ignorance when you pretend that I've said absurd things like "I want more criminals with guns".

 

[P@triot]

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.

Try another lame ass tactic.

Strawman comeback.

It's not a strawman you idiot.

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.

That's a fact!

You have to remember LL - when a Dumbocrat ecounters an intelligent, informed opposition, they panic. They realize they can't win the battle of the minds, so they resort to irrationally screaming one of two things: "racist" or "strawman".

The fact that they can't articulate why it is a strawman proves that it is not a "strawman".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Strawman comeback.

It's not a strawman you idiot.

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.

That's a fact!

You have to remember LL - when a Dumbocrat ecounters an intelligent, informed opposition, they panic. They realize they can't win the battle of the minds, so they resort to irrationally screaming one of two things: "racist" or "strawman".

The fact that they can't articulate why it is a strawman proves that it is not a "strawman".

I believe the 180 pages of this thread proves you are correct.

 

[Theowl32]

Yeah, no plan at all.

Basically, a liberal is truly concerned about one major thing. Acceptance from each other. They need to get the pats on the back from those that think like them. That means, they really do not care about the actual topic that they hype incessantly. From gay marriage, to man made global warming (laughing at that), to WMDs in Iraq (they sure as shit did not protest when Clinton bombed Iraq for WMDs), Gitmo being open (considering it is still open and no protests from code stink), etc etc etc.

In fact most liberals (the ignorant pawns which means all of the liberals on this board) really want to know two things. Where is the party, and where is my next orgasm coming from?

There are literally millions of left wing women who would gladly bend over and spread em if you are a good enough socialist and hate republicans enough.

This is just another topic that liberals feign fake outrage over. They get all worked up into a frenzy. They yell and dance like tards in the street. They will do it again when the next mass shooting takes place. Rinse repeat.

Yet, not one of them have come up with a real plan. As far as I can see, they pretty much deny that they want all guns banned, yet that is pretty much what they want. Also, most importantly, what most of these pawns do not know, is the commies on the left are desperately looking for a way to disarm the right wing populace of law abiding citizens. That is what they do not know.

We will be waiting for one of you to tell us what the plan is to get all of those guns.

Ladies and gentlemen.......

Liberals and guns and Hollywood

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zemrWBIc_hE]Andrew Shepard's Speech From The American President - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Bumberclyde]

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.

Try another lame ass tactic.

Strawman comeback.

It's not a strawman you idiot.

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.

That's a fact!

Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.

 

[kaz]

Strawman comeback.

It's not a strawman you idiot.

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.

That's a fact!

Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.

What you said is the strawman. Here is what the Constitution says. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is what we are arguing. What you are arguing is that you are not infringing on the right unless you completely ban it. Google the definition of the word "infringed" since you clearly don't know what it means.

Also, the distinction with what you are arguing with banning them is irrelevant. None of the dead people in the Washington Navy Yard are not dead because technically they were not banned from owning a gun. They did not have the gun when they were being shot at, so they were not able to shoot back. Guns were banned.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Strawman comeback.

It's not a strawman you idiot.

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.

That's a fact!

Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.

You are not intelligent enough to know what I or anyone else thinks.

Fact is you moron, there are people that want to ban guns.

Can you say "Diane Feinstein"?

This is the summary of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 she introduced.

What the bill does:

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

• All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
• All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
• All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
• All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

Read the full legislation here.

As far as I know, no one on the right has accused liberal idiots of wanting to ban ALL guns.

 

[Bumberclyde]

It's not a strawman you idiot.

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.

That's a fact!

Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.

You are not intelligent enough to know what I or anyone else thinks.

Fact is you moron, there are people that want to ban guns.

Can you say "Diane Feinstein"?

This is the summary of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 she introduced.

What the bill does:

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

• All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
• All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
• All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
• All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

Read the full legislation here.

As far as I know, no one on the right has accused liberal idiots of wanting to ban ALL guns.

Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.

 

[Brain357]

Nonsense. In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting. This has been well covered.

It's also irrelevant. You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.

Yes the comparison is complete nonsense. Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative. Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative. The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse. If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected. The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them. But they need a good doctor, not a gun.

Brainless continues to illustrate is stupidity to the world. There were no cars in the 1800's, the 1700's, the 1600's, the 1500's, the....well, you get the point. And the world did NOT "collapse". Furthermore, the Amish operate without automobiles every day and they are thriving.

The only thing that is going to cause the world to "collapse" is ignorant Dumbocrat marxist policy.

Oh so no cars or trucks would be no problem then? How would people get to work? How would grocery stores get food? How would any business get products to sell? How would customers get there? Just when I think you've hit a new high in dumb you shoot even higher.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.

You are not intelligent enough to know what I or anyone else thinks.

Fact is you moron, there are people that want to ban guns.

Can you say "Diane Feinstein"?

This is the summary of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 she introduced.

What the bill does:

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

• All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
• All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
• All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
• All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

Read the full legislation here.

As far as I know, no one on the right has accused liberal idiots of wanting to ban ALL guns.

Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.

Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes the comparison is complete nonsense. Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative. Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative. The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse. If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected. The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them. But they need a good doctor, not a gun.

Brainless continues to illustrate is stupidity to the world. There were no cars in the 1800's, the 1700's, the 1600's, the 1500's, the....well, you get the point. And the world did NOT "collapse". Furthermore, the Amish operate without automobiles every day and they are thriving.

The only thing that is going to cause the world to "collapse" is ignorant Dumbocrat marxist policy.

Oh so no cars or trucks would be no problem then? How would people get to work? How would grocery stores get food? How would any business get products to sell? How would customers get there? Just when I think you've hit a new high in dumb you shoot even higher.

Hey stupid, this thread isn't about automobiles and trying to compare cars to guns is equally stupid. We have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms, not so with automobiles.

 

[Brain357]

You are not intelligent enough to know what I or anyone else thinks.

Fact is you moron, there are people that want to ban guns.

Can you say "Diane Feinstein"?

This is the summary of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 she introduced.

What the bill does:

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

• All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
• All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
• All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
• All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
• All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

Read the full legislation here.

As far as I know, no one on the right has accused liberal idiots of wanting to ban ALL guns.

Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.

Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.

But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun. The country is a better place because of that.