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

[Brain357]

33 gun deaths every day
35 thousand since Sandy Hook
2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill

But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.

More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More children die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.

And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes less deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?

Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes less death and embrace and celebrate something which causes more death...

Who started talking cars? Haha

 

[OKTexas]

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.

You left out three very important words in your quote of the second amendment it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We can never let these commie slime balls forget that."

 

[Bumberclyde]

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.

You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?

When one has no valid argument they resort to crap like you just did.

 

[kaz]

You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.

Actually, it specifically addresses that.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seriously, if you don't know what 'infringed" means, Google it. But the upshot is that you can bear any weapon you want.

Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?

Dude, you asked and I answered this. From the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

You can remove the right to bear arms if you have gone through the DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Again, if you don't know what that means, Google it. Don't just keep repeating the question. The answer to your question is very straight forward and it's black and white. You can remove those rights, but only through the due process of law.

 

[P@triot]

33 gun deaths every day
35 thousand since Sandy Hook
2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill

But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.

More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More children die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.

And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes less deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?

Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes less death and embrace and celebrate something which causes more death...

Who started talking cars? Haha

I did! To illustrate two things about you:

• You don't care about human life
  
  
• You pretend to as a reason for your irrational fear of an inanimate object

 

[P@triot]

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.

You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?

It doesn't?!?!

"...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Notice that it doesn't say muskets? Or revolvers? Or cannons? It says arms.

arms
/ärmz/

noun
plural noun: arms

1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel

 

[P@triot]

None of those things are necessary. You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks? Nobody can be that stupid.

Wait a second brainless - I thought this was about people dying - not "necessity"? You can't seem to keep a consistent narrative. The minute we point out that automobiles cause more deaths yet you irrationally focus on guns, you change the reason why you are against guns.

And by the way stupid, guns are a billion times more necessary than automobiles. Take guns away from the military, the Secret Service, and the police and tell me how things would work out? Answer: you're brainless, dickless, ignorant ass wouldn't have the freedom to irrationally cry about guns on a forum.

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.

Two words: Sandy Hook

Without my gun, I can't properly defend myself and my family. I don't die if someone takes my vehicle away from me. There is a good chance of dying if someone takes my gun away from me.

 

[P@triot]

Yet another epic fail! Who said anything about banning guns? Anyone? Certainly not I. Making things safer as technology improves, yes, for ANY product.

A distinction without a difference. The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example. People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered. What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?

And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns? Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?

So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?

As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.

Nice try - but you're wrong. "A" for effort though!

Every mall or theater that has experienced a shooting that I'm aware of over the past 5 years or so banned guns.

Aurora was the ONLY theater within 20 minutes of James Holmes apartment which banned guns. And, it was further away from other theaters which were also showing Batman that day. So why did Holmes drive farther away? The answer is so painfully obvious, I won't even say it.....

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.

Proving once again the guns create peace and security and banning guns create victim zones. Sad. Very sad. These tragedies could be so easily avoided if Dumbocrats weren't hell bent on the destruction of America. The blood is all over your hands liberals.

Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?

 

[P@triot]

I would like to publicly apologize to [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I made a comment in one of these posts about him wanting to ban guns. He has since stated on multiple occasions that he does not want to ban guns.

That is my mistake for jumping to conclusions and I would like to apologize for doing that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Incorrect.

As Justice Scalia correctly observed in Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, jurisdictions are at liberty to prohibit the possession of firearms determined to be dangerous and unusual, and such prohibitions do not manifest an infringement on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment where the courts find those prohibitions warranted based on the evidence.

 

[Brain357]

More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More children die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.

And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes less deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?

Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes less death and embrace and celebrate something which causes more death...

Who started talking cars? Haha

I did! To illustrate two things about you:

• You don't care about human life
  
  
• You pretend to as a reason for your irrational fear of an inanimate object

And you did neither.

 

[Brain357]

Wait a second brainless - I thought this was about people dying - not "necessity"? You can't seem to keep a consistent narrative. The minute we point out that automobiles cause more deaths yet you irrationally focus on guns, you change the reason why you are against guns.

And by the way stupid, guns are a billion times more necessary than automobiles. Take guns away from the military, the Secret Service, and the police and tell me how things would work out? Answer: you're brainless, dickless, ignorant ass wouldn't have the freedom to irrationally cry about guns on a forum.

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.

Two words: Sandy Hook

Without my gun, I can't properly defend myself and my family. I don't die if someone takes my vehicle away from me. There is a good chance of dying if someone takes my gun away from me.

Clearly your very slow. The scenario was all guns disappear. In that case there is no Sandy Hook. That sounds kinda nice doesn't it? And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high. I've been doing it my whole life actually. And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.

 

[Brain357]

A distinction without a difference. The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example. People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered. What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?

And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns? Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?

So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?

As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.

Nice try - but you're wrong. "A" for effort though!

Every mall or theater that has experienced a shooting that I'm aware of over the past 5 years or so banned guns.

Aurora was the ONLY theater within 20 minutes of James Holmes apartment which banned guns. And, it was further away from other theaters which were also showing Batman that day. So why did Holmes drive farther away? The answer is so painfully obvious, I won't even say it.....

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.

Proving once again the guns create peace and security and banning guns create victim zones. Sad. Very sad. These tragedies could be so easily avoided if Dumbocrats weren't hell bent on the destruction of America. The blood is all over your hands liberals.

Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?

Of course if it wasn't for you gun nuts we might have put something in place so this guy didn't have a gun. He did threaten his psychologist after all. Clearly he was nuts and it was known, but the gun people won't let us put anything in place to stop these crimes. Instead they say we need more guns when we already have more than any other country. I guess 232,000 guns going to criminals each year isn't enough for them.

 

[P@triot]

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.

There is a big difference between "collapse" and "problem". Change your narrative much?

 

[Brain357]

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.

There is a big difference between "collapse" and "problem". Change your narrative much?

You really can't follow along very well can you?

 

[Spoonman]

33 gun deaths every day
35 thousand since Sandy Hook
2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill

But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.

now if you liberal douchebags could only come up with a way of doing that without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

another fact you better face, the only nutters in the minority are gun grabbers. You learned how much pull you really had when you failed to exploit the deaths of school children. You shot your load and it was blanks.

 

[Brain357]

33 gun deaths every day
35 thousand since Sandy Hook
2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill

But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.

now if you liberal douchebags could only come up with a way of doing that without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

another fact you better face, the only nutters in the minority are gun grabbers. You learned how much pull you really had when you failed to exploit the deaths of school children. You shot your load and it was blanks.

And now no children are any safer. Great big win for the gun nuts right?
The legacy of the gun nuts:
January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire

 

[P@triot]

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.

And once again the liberal illustrates their complete and total ignorance in front of the world.

It is 100% legal to purchase a fully automatic gun. Furthermore, it is legal to purchase a fully automatic gun with a silencer. I shoot them all the time.

Yes - they do require specific paperwork to be submitted to the ATF. But they are legal to buy and are sold all over America every day.

 

[P@triot]

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.

There is a big difference between "collapse" and "problem". Change your narrative much?

You really can't follow along very well can you?

I do follow along very well - which is why I'm able to illustrate just how dumb you are.

You said the world would "collapse". When I proved it wouldn't (the Amish being among the most obvious proof), you them came back with the childish "oh, so it would be no problem"?

Of course it would be a problem. But it wouldn't "collapse" the world.

Now tell us again junior how nobody can buy a fully automatic gun in 2014...