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

[kaz]

KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer. You know what we should do to solve a problem? Nothing!!

I'm not sure what that means.

Of course you don't...

You say that liberals don't have an answer. Your answer to gun violence? Do nothing.

So you and liberals both have something in common

The post in question. My solution is not to "do nothing," it's to remove our idiotic gun laws that keep getting honest people killed.

I also support keeping criminals in prison and catching them with guns so we can send them back to prisons. I also support stricter sentencing and eliminating parole for violent crimes. None of that is "nothing" other than the simplistic word game you want to play. But then, Simple is your language, Simpleton.

 

[kaz]

Test to show you are not an idiot. Can you answer these questions coherently? I'm not asking you to even be right, only to give a coherent response.

1) Let's accept your word parsing that I propose we do "nothing." If any course you take is worse than doing "nothing," (the point from the OP) what path should you logically follow?

2) Why would everything you think need to result in legislation? If you are against parents giving their kids ice cream for dinner, are the alternatives government banning it or doing "nothing?" What about your taking personal responsibility to support a charity that spreads nutrition and health information instead of running to a congressman?

 

[Geaux4it]

Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.

You and [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] seriously need to take a logic class. OK, once again. Changing HOW you make guns "illegal" doesn't even logically address the point.

The OP's point is, banning guns doesn't work for criminals, gun laws only work for honest citizens. So you are disarming honest citizens, not criminals.

CandyCorn says if you drive up the price of guns with taxes rather than banning them, it will work. Price is just another method of making guns "illegal." Criminals will just go buy illegal guns. She didn't change the premise, she only changed the method of making them "illegal." The question of what you do about criminals getting illegal guns is unaddressed.

You are doing the same thing. You are driving up the price of guns through technology, which will clearly impact gun ownership. And that will affect, again, LEGAL gun owners. Criminals will just turn again to illegal guns, you did not address the OP.

Not only the fingerprint scanner, but make new guns with slightly bigger barrels that would need bigger bullets. Once the bullets in circulation are all shot, the new bullets won't fit the old guns. Check. And mate.

Um, what if I melt the big bullets down and re-cast in the older smaller calibers?

I can wait

-Geaux

 

[ClosedCaption]

So after 200 pages you call ne a mpleton and agree with the point I made on page 1. If I'm a simpleton and you agree with me a month later that doesn't make you look good at all. I think you just insulted yourself.

I don't agree with what you said on page 1, I never have. .

Yes, MY solution is to do nothing. To allow people to defend themselves. That isn't the liberal solution. The liberal solution is to enact endless gun laws that only affect honest citizens and do not affect criminals.

Yes, yes you did. It only took you 200 pages to realize it. What do you call someone who agrees with a simpleton but it took them 200 pages to realize it? Whatever it is, thats you

 

[kaz]

So after 200 pages you call ne a mpleton and agree with the point I made on page 1. If I'm a simpleton and you agree with me a month later that doesn't make you look good at all. I think you just insulted yourself.

I don't agree with what you said on page 1, I never have. .

Yes, MY solution is to do nothing. To allow people to defend themselves. That isn't the liberal solution. The liberal solution is to enact endless gun laws that only affect honest citizens and do not affect criminals.

Yes, yes you did. It only took you 200 pages to realize it. What do you call someone who agrees with a simpleton but it took them 200 pages to realize it? Whatever it is, thats you

I suppose you are using your limited intelligence to the full extent of your ability. Really, that is all anyone can ask.

 

[Brain357]

When you say that I am not against abiding citizens owning guns, that's true.

I didn't say that about you - that's the position I have been arguing from the begining.

But when you say the stolen guns are 100% of the problem, that's not true

I never said they were. In fact - I said "We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible)."

So to deal with one particular way they get them now is irrelevant unless you can show what would stop them from simply re-arming other ways.

All of my suggestions have been geared to preventing criminals from getting guns NOT taking the ones they already have.

You're not addressing the whole theme that I am pointing out that gun laws only affect people who follow laws. Think about it. Of course I'm good with going after criminals who have guns, but your solution of going after honest citizens who are crime victims to do it is directly contradictory to my point.

MY proposals have been aimed at 1) background checks for all gun purchases (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens; 2) choking out shadow buyers (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens) and 3) holding gun owners accountable for taking reasonable measures to secure their firearm. (That could be construed as going after honest citizens I guess, but if someone is incredibly careless to the point of reckless in their failure to secure their firearm - then they're probably too stupid to go around armed themselves.)

Sound like fair proposals to me. Would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep them in law abiding citizens hands. Not really sure why anyone would be against this. The third part is a little tricky. I think you have to put in laws stating a gun either has to be on your person or stored in a safe. And I think you've stated it before, but all guns need to be registered.

Of course I'd also limit magazine capacity so less damage is done when a criminal gets a gun. There are many examples of shooters being stopped while or right after a reload. Take the bar example that was given on this thread for instance. And stats show defense only requires 2-3 shots. So it's a win for anyone trying to defend themselves.

And I would lock down the border. I have no doubt bad people and things are sneaking in over that border. And given our economy we sure don't need extra workers driving down wages and unemployment up.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Answer to the OP's question:

Reduce the number of criminals.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I don't agree with what you said on page 1, I never have. .

Yes, MY solution is to do nothing. To allow people to defend themselves. That isn't the liberal solution. The liberal solution is to enact endless gun laws that only affect honest citizens and do not affect criminals.

Yes, yes you did. It only took you 200 pages to realize it. What do you call someone who agrees with a simpleton but it took them 200 pages to realize it? Whatever it is, thats you

I suppose you are using your limited intelligence to the full extent of your ability. Really, that is all anyone can ask.

Thanks too bad you cant keep up. Maybe it'll take another 200 pages for you to realize it. Idiot

 

[kaz]

Yes, yes you did. It only took you 200 pages to realize it. What do you call someone who agrees with a simpleton but it took them 200 pages to realize it? Whatever it is, thats you

I suppose you are using your limited intelligence to the full extent of your ability. Really, that is all anyone can ask.

Thanks too bad you cant keep up. Maybe it'll take another 200 pages for you to realize it. Idiot

I'll just give you and example that you can fail to grasp like you fail to grasp everything else. The Washington Navy Yard. On a freaking military base, there was one armed guard. How many of the people in a ... military base ... do you suppose owned and knew how to use guns? So let's analyze.

Liberal system) It was illegal for everyone to have a gun there but the guard. The shooter ignored the law (gasp, who saw that coming?). The victims followed the law. The shooter took out the one armed guard then started shooting military people who owned and knew how to use guns but didn't have them because it was the law. They were murdered by the DC government and Slick Clinton so we could feel good about laws keeping guns from criminals. You know, like the one that was killing them. The shooter got to shoot until the situation was recognized and outside help was called in and people allowed to have guns came with guns to stop him.

My system) The military people who owned guns would have had them. The shooter knowing that probably wouldn't have done what he did. If he did, there would have been immediate return fire and most of the people who died wouldn't have died.

There aren't enough pages where I'm going to realize that my plan is the same as the liberal's plan. And you don't have enough intelligence to recognize that it isn't. So I think this is the permanent state.

 

[kaz]

Answer to the OP's question:

Reduce the number of criminals.

Can you maybe fill in a few details? How are you planning to do that?

 

[kaz]

Would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep them in law abiding citizens hands. Not really sure why anyone would be against this

Strawman, no one is against this. This is how liberals argue. It's why no one takes you seriously but yourselves. Unfortunately you breed like rabbits so there are a whole lot of you. But this is just a butt stupid statement that contradicts nothing anyone said in this or any other thread about guns.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Answer to the OP's question:

Reduce the number of criminals.

Can you maybe fill in a few details? How are you planning to do that?

Sure.

Start with free and easy access to sex education and contraceptives.
Then, fund education programs for expectant mothers and fathers. You know, parenting skills.....shit like that.
Then, make sure that every kid is well fed at all times regardless of parents ability to provide.
Then, fund education from all fronts. Facilities, technology, teachers ( free college and greater salaries ), post secondary education opportunities.
We can also legalize and regulate the sale of recreational drugs.

Need more?

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure why you took my name out of the quotes, but with all the traffic I missed this until the great brain quoted you.

But when you say the stolen guns are 100% of the problem, that's not true

I never said they were. In fact - I said "We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible)."

Actually you said exactly that, that all guns in the hands of criminals were stolen. Let's go to the video tape. You said that we are talking about guns in the hands of criminals (true) and that those are 100% of the problem (not true). If you misspoke, that's fine, we all do it. But you cannot deny that's what you said. I was talking about all guns in the hands of criminals, I said nothing about the stolen ones, you brought that up. And you said stolen guns are "100% of the problem." One hundred percent of the problem would be all guns in the hands of all criminals, not just the stolen ones. So if stolen guns are 100% of the problem, then you are saying 100% of guns in the hands of criminals are stolen.

the 0.077 is 100% of the problem I (and the original poster) are talking about. We are not talking about how to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - so the 300,000,000 figure is pointless. We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible).

So to deal with one particular way they get them now is irrelevant unless you can show what would stop them from simply re-arming other ways.

All of my suggestions have been geared to preventing criminals from getting guns NOT taking the ones they already have.

What you have not addressed are the myriad of laws that do keep guns out of the laws of honest citizens. Are you going to eliminate those? I'll agree to the deal of doing that and replacing them with just your meaningless and ineffective steps. If you aren't going to dismantle the current laws, your plan is still to disarm honest citizens and do nothing about criminals since that's what we are doing now and you'd still be doing the same.

 

[kaz]

Answer to the OP's question:

Reduce the number of criminals.

Can you maybe fill in a few details? How are you planning to do that?

Sure.

Start with free and easy access to sex education and contraceptives.
Then, fund education programs for expectant mothers and fathers. You know, parenting skills.....shit like that.
Then, make sure that every kid is well fed at all times regardless of parents ability to provide.
Then, fund education from all fronts. Facilities, technology, teachers ( free college and greater salaries ), post secondary education opportunities.
We can also legalize and regulate the sale of recreational drugs.

Need more?

The one relevant proposal you have is to address the war on drugs. Though by not ending it you only have a marginal impact on it. Other than that, you want to use this to peddle socialism.

As for the socialism side, what people need, Homey, is not more government, they need more jobs. And they get those by ending the idiotic minimum wage that prevents inner city teens from getting a job and unencumbering our economy with the endless taxes and regulations that hold it down. And government schools are certainly not the answer to a better educated population. And as for the actual thread, you have no plan at all.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep them in law abiding citizens hands. Not really sure why anyone would be against this

Strawman, no one is against this. This is how liberals argue. It's why no one takes you seriously but yourselves. Unfortunately you breed like rabbits so there are a whole lot of you. But this is just a butt stupid statement that contradicts nothing anyone said in this or any other thread about guns.

Strawman,

The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court

On Wednesday the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in Abramski v. United States, a case that, except for a miscarriage of justice, probably wouldn't have been heard at all.

At issue is whether Congress intended to have the Gun Control Act of 1968 keep guns out of the hands of criminals through requiring background checks of individuals purchasing guns, but not allow law-abiding individuals to purchase guns for someone else. It was a loophole in the law that various courts tried to plug by creating a “straw man” doctrine, which was later codified into law. In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) modified its Form 4473 to say that such straw man purchases were illegal on their face and wouldn't be permitted.

In a strange case that grew out of an illegal search, a former law-enforcement officer, Bruce Abramski, was found to have purchased a Glock 19 for his uncle, taking advantage of a “discount” offered by gun dealers to active and former law-enforcement officers.

The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court

 

[kaz]

MY proposals have been aimed at 1) background checks for all gun purchases (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens; 2) choking out shadow buyers (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens) and 3) holding gun owners accountable for taking reasonable measures to secure their firearm. (That could be construed as going after honest citizens I guess, but if someone is incredibly careless to the point of reckless in their failure to secure their firearm - then they're probably too stupid to go around armed themselves.)

Being "careless" opens government to so much power to interpret what is and what isn't careless. If you have your gun inside your own home on your own property, that already is taking reasonable precautions. I am not really getting what you are getting at here. Are you talking about people leaving their gun on a park bench?

Got an answer, Dawg? I keep my gun in my own home, it's broken into and stolen. Explain how that is on me.

 

[kaz]

Would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep them in law abiding citizens hands. Not really sure why anyone would be against this

Strawman, no one is against this. This is how liberals argue. It's why no one takes you seriously but yourselves. Unfortunately you breed like rabbits so there are a whole lot of you. But this is just a butt stupid statement that contradicts nothing anyone said in this or any other thread about guns.

Strawman,

The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court

On Wednesday the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in Abramski v. United States, a case that, except for a miscarriage of justice, probably wouldn't have been heard at all.

At issue is whether Congress intended to have the Gun Control Act of 1968 keep guns out of the hands of criminals through requiring background checks of individuals purchasing guns, but not allow law-abiding individuals to purchase guns for someone else. It was a loophole in the law that various courts tried to plug by creating a “straw man” doctrine, which was later codified into law. In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) modified its Form 4473 to say that such straw man purchases were illegal on their face and wouldn't be permitted.

In a strange case that grew out of an illegal search, a former law-enforcement officer, Bruce Abramski, was found to have purchased a Glock 19 for his uncle, taking advantage of a “discount” offered by gun dealers to active and former law-enforcement officers.

The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court

I just wanted to be sure you realize I was referring to that his argument was a strawman, I wasn't talking about straw man gun sales.

 

[hazlnut]

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!

Looks like you're stuck on my web of lives…

 

[jon_berzerk]

Strawman, no one is against this. This is how liberals argue. It's why no one takes you seriously but yourselves. Unfortunately you breed like rabbits so there are a whole lot of you. But this is just a butt stupid statement that contradicts nothing anyone said in this or any other thread about guns.

Strawman,

The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court

On Wednesday the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in Abramski v. United States, a case that, except for a miscarriage of justice, probably wouldn't have been heard at all.

At issue is whether Congress intended to have the Gun Control Act of 1968 keep guns out of the hands of criminals through requiring background checks of individuals purchasing guns, but not allow law-abiding individuals to purchase guns for someone else. It was a loophole in the law that various courts tried to plug by creating a “straw man” doctrine, which was later codified into law. In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) modified its Form 4473 to say that such straw man purchases were illegal on their face and wouldn't be permitted.

In a strange case that grew out of an illegal search, a former law-enforcement officer, Bruce Abramski, was found to have purchased a Glock 19 for his uncle, taking advantage of a “discount” offered by gun dealers to active and former law-enforcement officers.

The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court

I just wanted to be sure you realize I was referring to that his argument was a strawman, I wasn't talking about straw man gun sales.

yes

i just wanted to post the SC hearing

thanks

i am looking forward to see the opinion

 

[kaz]

Strawman,

The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court

On Wednesday the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in Abramski v. United States, a case that, except for a miscarriage of justice, probably wouldn't have been heard at all.

At issue is whether Congress intended to have the Gun Control Act of 1968 keep guns out of the hands of criminals through requiring background checks of individuals purchasing guns, but not allow law-abiding individuals to purchase guns for someone else. It was a loophole in the law that various courts tried to plug by creating a “straw man” doctrine, which was later codified into law. In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) modified its Form 4473 to say that such straw man purchases were illegal on their face and wouldn't be permitted.

In a strange case that grew out of an illegal search, a former law-enforcement officer, Bruce Abramski, was found to have purchased a Glock 19 for his uncle, taking advantage of a “discount” offered by gun dealers to active and former law-enforcement officers.

The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court

I just wanted to be sure you realize I was referring to that his argument was a strawman, I wasn't talking about straw man gun sales.

yes

i just wanted to post the SC hearing

thanks

i am looking forward to see the opinion

I'm not sure what you're arguing here exactly, Jon.