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

[hunarcy]

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

And your theory is that one thing criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally. On the other hand, by definition honest citizens don't break the law. So what you have done, Holmes, is agree with my op. You only want to restrict gun ownership for honest citizens, LOL. Thanks for playing, but you lost. Here's our board game version to take home with you. Don't go away mad, just go away.

LOL, liberals, classic

My opinion included not a word which could be inferred by anyone who reads with comprehension that "criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally". That is one more logical fallacy (Straw Man), and I'm being kind. In fact it's a LIE.

Then your post was irrelevant since that is the subject of the thread. So what is the purpose of licensing guns if you are not claiming that will stop criminals from getting them exactly, Holmes?

Honest citizens break the law everyday (I hope that paradox isn't too abstract for you) and that is why we have penal codes. Speed and you get a ticket and a fine; steal and you get jail and a fine; sell a gun to an unlicensed person and you woujld lose your license and pay a fine.

What a dumb ass. Word parsing is such a great argument ... not ...

I would like to see

guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens. I know that's not practical, not possible and I know the NRA and its members care only about their rights, not the rights of others; they will never stop falsely claiming the Second A. is sacrosanct. Heller was one vote short of proving this claim wrong.

Right, and your plan is to only restrict ownership for honest, sane and sober citizens

My plan was to demonstrate the fallacy of the loaded question. Your efforts to rebut my claim - easily verified by reading the link supplied - was to post several common logical fallacies (Straw Man, Red Herring and Ad Hominem).

I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens. That would include the vast majority of citizens. Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh? If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?

I would love to see society restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens by taking those who don't fit that description removed from society and either incarcerated or restricted to hospitals to get the mental health treatments they need, rather than letting them wander about suffering and creating problems for honest, sane and sober citizens.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.

Really? I actually had some trouble getting "as pot as I want" in H.S. Took me weeks just to set up a deal for a 1/4 lb, and in the end all the dude had was 3 oz. I think you're full of shit.

 

[kaz]

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.

Really? I actually had some trouble getting "as pot as I want" in H.S. Took me weeks just to set up a deal for a 1/4 lb, and in the end all the dude had was 3 oz. I think you're full of shit.

Well Holmes, apparently the other kids don't trust you. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[kaz]

I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens

No shit Dick Tracy. If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that. An answer you have yet to provide. You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't

That would include the vast majority of citizens. Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh? If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?

Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime. You really are this stupid, aren't you?

 

[2aguy]

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens

No shit Dick Tracy. If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that. An answer you have yet to provide. You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't

That would include the vast majority of citizens. Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh? If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?

Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime. You really are this stupid, aren't you?

[I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]

Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times. Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too. You and M14-shooter need to grow up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?

Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

 

[2aguy]

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

No, you haven't....you simply say...make people get a license....that is not explaining anything....I have shown you....again and again and just in my last post, that licensing is not needed, and neither is registration of guns......all you have to do is arrest people committing crimes with guns and arrest convicted criminals who own or carry guns....

Therefore there is no need to register guns or license owners....

Please....explain why you need either one......

 

[2aguy]

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

 

[kaz]

I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens

No shit Dick Tracy. If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that. An answer you have yet to provide. You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't

That would include the vast majority of citizens. Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh? If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?

Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime. You really are this stupid, aren't you?

[I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]

Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times. Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too. You and M14-shooter need to grow up.

So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed

 

[kaz]

Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread. What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question. Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

So no one can read or speak English but you. Deflection anyone?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

So no one can read or speak English but you. Deflection anyone?

Yeah sure, many can; you obviously will not or can not understand the written word. The jury is out, are you willfully ignorant or intellectually impaired? That is a legitimate question.

 

[kaz]

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

Major difference.

Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders

Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals

 

[2aguy]

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

And again....everything you just listed...is already the fucking law..............

Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

Moron.....this can already be done because of current laws about guns......you don't need to add the extra paperwork of a license....if you break those laws you pointed out.....You already lose your ability to own or carry a gun....

Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

Again....a license is not needed....you can't sell or give a gun to a criminal....it is already against the law...so again, a license is not needed by a gun owner......

And dude......the current gun laws haven't slowed down criminals or mass shooters from gettng guns....and not one thing you just posted would stop it either.....

Criminals get their guns through straw purchases and stealing them.....not one thing you said changes that in any way....you can make people get super, duper, extra special licences with sugar on top......and criminals will still get guns through straw purchases and stealing guns

 

[kaz]

Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question? How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers? Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes. So how are you going to keep guns from criminals? And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan? Stop hiding and step up to the question.

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

So no one can read or speak English but you. Deflection anyone?

Yeah sure, many can; you obviously will not or can not understand the written word. The jury is out, are you willfully ignorant or intellectually impaired? That is a legitimate question.

Yet you still can't answer the question. All you have is let's go with registering guns because we have to try something and it's not your fault they don't work.

What about other Constitutional rights? Can we limit free speech or say the right to freedom from illegal search and seizure limited to those who apply for a license, pay a fee and get approved from Government?

 

[2aguy]

First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.

I have answered the question [Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan] several times. Once again:

• Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
• Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
• Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record

The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide. Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

• Anyone convicted of a violent felony
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
• Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
• Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
• Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
• Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others

Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

Major difference.

Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders

Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals

Exactly........they don't really care about criminals getting guns...their policy choices show it....they just hate normal people who want to own guns and they know they can punish those people with the right laws....the more confusing the better.......

 

[Wry Catcher]

I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens

No shit Dick Tracy. If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that. An answer you have yet to provide. You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't

That would include the vast majority of citizens. Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh? If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?

Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime. You really are this stupid, aren't you?

[I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]

Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times. Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too. You and M14-shooter need to grow up.

So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed

Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.

Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns. Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.

 

[kaz]

You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care? Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?

No, not correct

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)

You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....

Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your reasoning (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause. Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law. Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns. That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.

Major difference.

Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders

Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals

Exactly........they don't really care about criminals getting guns...their policy choices show it....they just hate normal people who want to own guns and they know they can punish those people with the right laws....the more confusing the better.......

It's about government power.

“Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater.” -- Peter Venetoklis.

 

[kaz]

I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens

No shit Dick Tracy. If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that. An answer you have yet to provide. You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't

That would include the vast majority of citizens. Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh? If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?

Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime. You really are this stupid, aren't you?

[I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]

Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times. Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too. You and M14-shooter need to grow up.

So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed

Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.

Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns. Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.

Really? The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting. Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.

That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with. You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic