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

[Brain357]

Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.

Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign. This debate is over. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.

I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world. How are they providing billions of them? I think you greatly underestimate what we could do. Take machine guns. Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.

Machine Guns are not ruled to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But in all but a handful of States one can legally buy one or more fully automatic weapons.

The requirements for the ownership of fully automatic weapons is an infringement on the right to bear arms if applied to protected weapons.

Right and I never hear about machine guns being used in crimes or mass shootings.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world. How are they providing billions of them? I think you greatly underestimate what we could do. Take machine guns. Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.

Machine Guns are not ruled to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But in all but a handful of States one can legally buy one or more fully automatic weapons.

The requirements for the ownership of fully automatic weapons is an infringement on the right to bear arms if applied to protected weapons.

Right and I never hear about machine guns being used in crimes or mass shootings.

Then you are an idiot. Hell I am pretty sure I posted a link to a story about LA police being robbed of a shit load of sub machine guns. Gangs use them all the time. The problem is that rifles are hard to tote around and so they want machine pistols or uzis.

Most crime is carried out with a handgun as the other weapons are either to big or to wild in use. Yet retards like you want to ban the supposed "assault" rifle.

 

[Brain357]

Machine Guns are not ruled to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But in all but a handful of States one can legally buy one or more fully automatic weapons.

The requirements for the ownership of fully automatic weapons is an infringement on the right to bear arms if applied to protected weapons.

Right and I never hear about machine guns being used in crimes or mass shootings.

Then you are an idiot. Hell I am pretty sure I posted a link to a story about LA police being robbed of a shit load of sub machine guns. Gangs use them all the time. The problem is that rifles are hard to tote around and so they want machine pistols or uzis.

Most crime is carried out with a handgun as the other weapons are either to big or to wild in use. Yet retards like you want to ban the supposed "assault" rifle.

Feel free to post some links to stats showing how often machine guns are used in crimes.

 

[Spoonman]

keep it up gun grabbers. the more you try to force your issues, the more you fall behind. what other industry is going through such massive expansion and still can't keep up with demand? bottom line gun friendly states win, blue states lose. they lose jobs, revenue and tax dollars. and the number of guns owned in there states are still exploding. and this is just domestic manufacturing. the amount of foreign product flooding this country is staggering. and kids today want guns. kids years ago barely had guns on their minds. but today, they become legal age and they have to have one. its going to be a real wild ride the next few years

Another Gun Maker Says "Ciao!" to Restrictive Laws (RGR, SWHC)

So your happy about kids and guns?
January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire

I couldn't be happier kids are wanting guns when they become of legal age. it bodes well for the future

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Right and I never hear about machine guns being used in crimes or mass shootings.

Then you are an idiot. Hell I am pretty sure I posted a link to a story about LA police being robbed of a shit load of sub machine guns. Gangs use them all the time. The problem is that rifles are hard to tote around and so they want machine pistols or uzis.

Most crime is carried out with a handgun as the other weapons are either to big or to wild in use. Yet retards like you want to ban the supposed "assault" rifle.

Feel free to post some links to stats showing how often machine guns are used in crimes.

Gang shootings in the big cities do not make the National news. And the FBI does not break the firearms down with that category.

 

[Spoonman]

Right and I never hear about machine guns being used in crimes or mass shootings.

Then you are an idiot. Hell I am pretty sure I posted a link to a story about LA police being robbed of a shit load of sub machine guns. Gangs use them all the time. The problem is that rifles are hard to tote around and so they want machine pistols or uzis.

Most crime is carried out with a handgun as the other weapons are either to big or to wild in use. Yet retards like you want to ban the supposed "assault" rifle.

Feel free to post some links to stats showing how often machine guns are used in crimes.

less than even hammers. we should be banning hammers

 

[Brain357]

Then you are an idiot. Hell I am pretty sure I posted a link to a story about LA police being robbed of a shit load of sub machine guns. Gangs use them all the time. The problem is that rifles are hard to tote around and so they want machine pistols or uzis.

Most crime is carried out with a handgun as the other weapons are either to big or to wild in use. Yet retards like you want to ban the supposed "assault" rifle.

Feel free to post some links to stats showing how often machine guns are used in crimes.

Gang shootings in the big cities do not make the National news. And the FBI does not break the firearms down with that category.

Then it sounds like somebody is talking out of his rear.

 

[Spoonman]

anyone know what the fastest growing demographic in America is? Gun owners

 

[P@triot]

Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal. Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?

Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.

Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign. This debate is over. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.

I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world. How are they providing billions of them? I think you greatly underestimate what we could do. Take machine guns. Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.

I didn't say billions of guns - I said billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

Let me ask you a serious question: how are our laws against cocaine working out? Against marijuana? Against heroin (I presume you've seen the news regarding Philip Seymour Hoffman)? I could literally go on all day. Show me something banned or illegal and I'll show you an abundance of it.

What we need to do is come down harder on criminals. Much harder. Armed robbery will generally get you five years of comfortable housing, 3 squares a day, cable tv, personal basketball court, and a phenomenal weight room.

How about we make armed robbery a life sentence, with one meal per day, no tv (ever), no basketball courts or weight rooms, and you never leave your cell? And you make sure the laws are well publicized.

That would be exponentially more effective than any law against guns. But liberals would rather defend the criminals and attack the inanimate object. That's because the liberal powers need the criminals and they need to disarm the law abiding citizen (like everything else, if you have to solely rely on government for your security, that increases the chances that you'll vote for big government - and the liberal masters will get the power they so desperately crave).

 

[P@triot]

I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.

Not sure if I agree with that. Arrest a guy because someone broke into his house and stole a gun (along with other valuable items)? Seems extreme.

I didn't suggest that.

Grossly neglegent (to me anyway, I guess a more full definition would have to be fleshed out) is leaving your piece in the front seat of your unlocked car while you pop into the store for a "minute." Or basically just being so stupidly careless that you virtually invite someone to take it. I'd also be OK with charging someone who doesn't even make a thief defeat one, medium duty lock in order to steal their gun.

So if a woman is "grossly negligent", you support charging her for her own rape [MENTION=16263]nodoginnafight[/MENTION]? Really? Man are you sick.....

 

[P@triot]

All taxes are punitive to some degree. Again, you are only coming up with excuses. At least try to get some good ones and quit with the lame ones.

Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.

We have lost sight of that.

In economics you learn that taxes are also about incentivizing desired behavior.

When you say "your" precious little social polices. You mean "our". You have a vote. The tradition of safety nets grew out of the Great Depression -- Americans can not abide families and old people dying in the streets. And the notion that if you float people during a recession or transitional period, a certain percentage will find work.

We are a compassionate nation and, to some degree, believe that care for the sick and poor who can not care for themselves is a good thing for our national character.

The greatest thing about this country is if you just can't stand these traditions, then you are free to leave.

As far as pay a fine, if young people want to carry around a DNR order on their arm band or in their wallet -- saying if I get into a horrific accident, let me die -- then they don't have to pay the ACA fine. However, who's going to scrape their bodies off the streets?

Who are these people who don't think they have to have health insurance?

It's always fascinating when Dumbocrats have an accidental moment of honesty.

Think about just how fuck'n sick that statement is. We all know that taxes are intended for one purpose and one purpose only: to run the Constitutional responsibilities of government.

But a liberal looks at it (like everything else) as a way to control others and as a way to punish.

Which is what makes it all the more hilarious when they claim that raising taxes doesn't effect employment. Wait a second - you just admitted that it's a way to punish. That means you clearly realize that taxes have a tremendous negative impact.

Oops! Looks like [MENTION=39768]hazlnut[/MENTION] just fucked up and forgot - in his web of lives - what his previous narrative was. He just got caught contradicting himself. Buh-bye credibility!

 

[Brain357]

Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.

Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign. This debate is over. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.

I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world. How are they providing billions of them? I think you greatly underestimate what we could do. Take machine guns. Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.

I didn't say billions of guns - I said billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

Let me ask you a serious question: how are our laws against cocaine working out? Against marijuana? Against heroin (I presume you've seen the news regarding Philip Seymour Hoffman)? I could literally go on all day. Show me something banned or illegal and I'll show you an abundance of it.

What we need to do is come down harder on criminals. Much harder. Armed robbery will generally get you five years of comfortable housing, 3 squares a day, cable tv, personal basketball court, and a phenomenal weight room.

How about we make armed robbery a life sentence, with one meal per day, no tv (ever), no basketball courts or weight rooms, and you never leave your cell? And you make sure the laws are well publicized.

That would be exponentially more effective than any law against guns. But liberals would rather defend the criminals and attack the inanimate object. That's because the liberal powers need the criminals and they need to disarm the law abiding citizen (like everything else, if you have to solely rely on government for your security, that increases the chances that you'll vote for big government - and the liberal masters will get the power they so desperately crave).

I think drug laws are completely different. The only victim of drugs is the person taking them. People aren't using drugs to kill other innocent people.

Well you won't find me defending criminals. But I think we need to look at why there are so many criminals. I mean our jails are so full compared to other countries for a reason. Now personally I think it has a lot to do with inequality, but being a righty I'm sure you'll deny that even exists. But for those who commit the most horrible of crimes I say get rid of and for others it better not be like a resort.

Look I'm not trying to take guns away from everybody. But as long as we can't seem to do anything about criminals and crazies I'd just assume do what we can to keep them away from guns.

 

[P@triot]

So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant? If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share. Why are you avoiding the question?

300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only 0.075% of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.

Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.

The only thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?

232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.

The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...

 

[Geaux4it]

I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world. How are they providing billions of them? I think you greatly underestimate what we could do. Take machine guns. Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.

I didn't say billions of guns - I said billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

Let me ask you a serious question: how are our laws against cocaine working out? Against marijuana? Against heroin (I presume you've seen the news regarding Philip Seymour Hoffman)? I could literally go on all day. Show me something banned or illegal and I'll show you an abundance of it.

What we need to do is come down harder on criminals. Much harder. Armed robbery will generally get you five years of comfortable housing, 3 squares a day, cable tv, personal basketball court, and a phenomenal weight room.

How about we make armed robbery a life sentence, with one meal per day, no tv (ever), no basketball courts or weight rooms, and you never leave your cell? And you make sure the laws are well publicized.

That would be exponentially more effective than any law against guns. But liberals would rather defend the criminals and attack the inanimate object. That's because the liberal powers need the criminals and they need to disarm the law abiding citizen (like everything else, if you have to solely rely on government for your security, that increases the chances that you'll vote for big government - and the liberal masters will get the power they so desperately crave).

I think drug laws are completely different. The only victim of drugs is the person taking them. People aren't using drugs to kill other innocent people.

Well you won't find me defending criminals. But I think we need to look at why there are so many criminals. I mean our jails are so full compared to other countries for a reason. Now personally I think it has a lot to do with inequality, but being a righty I'm sure you'll deny that even exists. But for those who commit the most horrible of crimes I say get rid of and for others it better not be like a resort.

Look I'm not trying to take guns away from everybody. But as long as we can't seem to do anything about criminals and crazies I'd just assume do what we can to keep them away from guns.

Sorry... law abiding gun owners will not pay the cost of freedom for criminal element the government does not address

We will address it

-Geaux

 

[Bumberclyde]

300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only 0.075% of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.

Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.

The only thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?

232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.

The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...

Flooding the territory with guns and then pointing at some seemingly low statistic is the number 2 strawman argument of the NRA. Rottweenie is just a parrot.
And the number 1 strawman argument of the NRA is: GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Geaux4it]

Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.

The only thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?

232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.

The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...

Flooding the territory with guns and then pointing at some seemingly low statistic is the number 2 strawman argument of the NRA. Rottweenie is just a parrot.
And the number 1 strawman argument of the NRA is: GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree... The radical, emotional, leftist, liberal anti-gun loons don't have the nerve to try. So instead, they shout from the mountaintop

-Geaux

 

[Bumberclyde]

The only thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?

232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.

The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...

Flooding the territory with guns and then pointing at some seemingly low statistic is the number 2 strawman argument of the NRA. Rottweenie is just a parrot.
And the number 1 strawman argument of the NRA is: GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree... The radical, emotional, leftist, liberal anti-gun loons don't have the nerve to try. So instead, they shout from the mountaintop

-Geaux

Personally I think that they are just trying to do something about all the gun violence in the US. The NRA just wants to arm more people to make the US safer. Just 2 completely different viewpoints, like abortion debate, the civil war... Merkans like to polarize a debate and then fight it out. Pretty messed up.

 

[Geaux4it]

Flooding the territory with guns and then pointing at some seemingly low statistic is the number 2 strawman argument of the NRA. Rottweenie is just a parrot.
And the number 1 strawman argument of the NRA is: GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree... The radical, emotional, leftist, liberal anti-gun loons don't have the nerve to try. So instead, they shout from the mountaintop

-Geaux

Personally I think that they are just trying to do something about all the gun violence in the US. The NRA just wants to arm more people to make the US safer. Just 2 completely different viewpoints, like abortion debate, the civil war... Merkans like to polarize a debate and then fight it out. Pretty messed up.

There are more pressing issues impacting ALL Americans where the energy should be focused

-Geaux

 

[Bumberclyde]

Agree... The radical, emotional, leftist, liberal anti-gun loons don't have the nerve to try. So instead, they shout from the mountaintop

-Geaux

Personally I think that they are just trying to do something about all the gun violence in the US. The NRA just wants to arm more people to make the US safer. Just 2 completely different viewpoints, like abortion debate, the civil war... Merkans like to polarize a debate and then fight it out. Pretty messed up.

There are more pressing issues impacting ALL Americans where the energy should be focused

-Geaux

Bof, I think it's possible to something if the will of the people is there. I find it really messed up that the NRA folks don't even want to try ANYTHING except arm more people, and they actually get taken seriously. It makes no fucking sense.

 

[Geaux4it]

Personally I think that they are just trying to do something about all the gun violence in the US. The NRA just wants to arm more people to make the US safer. Just 2 completely different viewpoints, like abortion debate, the civil war... Merkans like to polarize a debate and then fight it out. Pretty messed up.

There are more pressing issues impacting ALL Americans where the energy should be focused

-Geaux

Bof, I think it's possible to something if the will of the people is there. I find it really messed up that the NRA folks don't even want to try ANYTHING except arm more people, and they actually get taken seriously. It makes no fucking sense.

Firearm ownership is a powerful family tradition in many areas. There are many things that represent the Untied States way of life, and to some extent, the pubs and the citizens are letting them slip away.

Firearm ownership is not one of them

BTW- You do know the NRA used to draft and promote restrictive gun control laws

-Geaux