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

[itfitzme]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.

My plan is less criminals.

A: Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
B: Eliminate all criminal activities of the government. Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
C: End the war on Drugs. Duh.
D: End government managed welfare.
E: Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act. No job, no family, no assets, no ward? Fine you get to go on the chain gang.

I cannot begin to tell you how absurd you are.

 

[itfitzme]

1) What "absolute" argument are you talking about?

2) You don't know what a strawman is.

Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?

The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence. Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.

I'll show you a strawman, it's in red. No one said that but you. The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did. That was you, sweetie.

Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.

If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.

Did you get your good cry out, little girl? I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting. Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?

What do you imagine you are talking about?

 

[itfitzme]

The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence. Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.

I'll show you a strawman, it's in red. No one said that but you. The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did. That was you, sweetie.

Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.

If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.

Did you get your good cry out, little girl? I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting. Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?

@ Ifitzme

He did this little two step with me also. They will describe "ending all violence" to a tee. Then when you catch them they claim that in order to me ALL he has to specifically say the word "all".

He's been at it for at least 13 pages or more

Yes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are an absolutist, a delusional believer that there are absolutes in life. There are no absolutes, no absolutes in law (some people still drive over the posted speed limit), no absolutes in science (even Newton's Laws of Motion have a statistical basis), no absolutes in even perception of reality (learn about optical illusions, our perception is a reconstruction based on assumptions built into our brains.)

You are presenting, basically, a bullshit strawman argument.

1) What "absolute" argument are you talking about?

2) You don't know what a strawman is.

Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?

The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence. Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.

Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.

If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.

Strict repressive gun laws don't work. Or explain the crime and murder rates in Chicago, NYC and Washington DC. Or perhaps the murder and crime rates in Russia, South Africa, Mexico and even England?

It is not absolutes that are the problem it is the abject failure of repressive laws to curb violence and murder. Where such laws are enforce crime is higher, violence is higher and murder is higher then where less restrictive gun laws are in place.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny. Not even the anti gun euro countries have. They should be the first right?

I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.

Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny. Name some.

Egypt?

 

[Steven_R]

Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny. Not even the anti gun euro countries have. They should be the first right?

I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.

Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny. Name some.

Germany in 1933 was a democracy. Arguably Venezuela under Chavez. Technically Cuba is a democracy as is Egypt and China.

The point isn't that the US is going to be a tyranny tomorrow, just that it could and the reset button is the Second Amendment. It can and has happened here, albeit on local levels, but the federal government has done some questionable things of late.

 

[Brain357]

I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.

Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny. Name some.

Egypt?

Your joking? How about established democracies similar to ours?

 

[kaz]

The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence. Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.

I'll show you a strawman, it's in red. No one said that but you. The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did. That was you, sweetie.

Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.

If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.

Did you get your good cry out, little girl? I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting. Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?

What do you imagine you are talking about?

I'm talking about gun laws, the part about perfect solutions came from you. And only you.

 

[Steven_R]

Chile under Pinochet, but then again so was Chile under Allende.

 

[itfitzme]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.

Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.

In short, make guns less lethal.

In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts. Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths. But I doubt that. The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship. They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.

Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades. The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons. Blame them.

We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society. The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting". Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades. Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire? Really? Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?

Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?

So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way? Say even on the same planes?

You are using the stupid "If the law can be violated the there shouldn't be a law" argument.

Seeing as people still speed, then we shouldn't has speed limits.

Seeing as an education can't make you think intelligently, we shouldn't have schools.

We should start by putting you in a mental institution, under constant supervision. That will go along ways to increasing the average IQ of the labor force.

 

[Bern80]

You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.

I'm sorry but your argument is horribly flawed candy. I'm sorry for whatever you experienced in life that gave you such a negative preception of guns. At some point I hope you gain the objectivity to realize that it is only that; a perception which does not neccessarily constitute reality. You say the above as if their is a realtionship between the number of guns in existence and death. That's simply not correct. You convenietly ignored my response, probably because you can't argue it, but to reiterate, if that were the case, there should have been death and violence all around growing up considering the number of guns in my neighborhood and that simply wasn't the case. You are wrong on to fronts here. A moral one in that it wrong to punish and stigmatize the law abiding in response to the non law abiding. You are no different than someone who would tax a person for being gay. It is also wrong from simple logical problem solving perspective. If you outlaw guns, only the lawless will have them.

Society has long taxed behavior it sees as damaging and encouraged behavior it sees as beneficial.

Sorry you disagree with what I perceive as one or the other. I tend to think of body counts in the thousands as bad things and you do not...but there is NO danger of anything I'm proposing getting passed in this day and age.

Relax.

On the contrary. It is YOU who does not think about the body counts. Outlawing guns is not the logical response of someone who is concerned with that. The logical response would be to look at the root causes of violence, not focus solely on the object with which violence is carried out. You would also to a better job of priortizing these things that supposedly cause death. Guns are pretty low on the list of inanimate objects involved in injury and death in the U.S. Cars are significantly above guns in that respect. Why is it you are not motivated to ban those. To use your own words and simply changing a noun; The harder you make it to own a car, the fewer of them there will be and less death and injury as a result.

 

[RKMBrown]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.

My plan is less criminals.

A: Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
B: Eliminate all criminal activities of the government. Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
C: End the war on Drugs. Duh.
D: End government managed welfare.
E: Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act. No job, no family, no assets, no ward? Fine you get to go on the chain gang.

I cannot begin to tell you how absurd you are.

Let me guess A-E affect you directly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny. Name some.

Egypt?

Your joking? How about established democracies similar to ours?

Germany 1933. Greece 1946 to 48. Italy in what ever year Mussolini took over.

 

[kaz]

The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence. Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.

I'll show you a strawman, it's in red. No one said that but you. The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did. That was you, sweetie.

Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.

If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.

Did you get your good cry out, little girl? I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting. Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?

@ Ifitzme

He did this little two step with me also. They will describe "ending all violence" to a tee. Then when you catch them they claim that in order to me ALL he has to specifically say the word "all".

He's been at it for at least 13 pages or more

Backward, actually, you did this little two step with me also. You put "ending all violence" in quotes. So show me the post where any of us said "ending all violence."

Going into a discussion and assigning the other side the task of providing a perfect solution is just stupid. Which is why you to simpletons came up with it.

 

[itfitzme]

I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.

Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny. Name some.

Germany in 1933 was a democracy. Arguably Venezuela under Chavez. Technically Cuba is a democracy as is Egypt and China.

The point isn't that the US is going to be a tyranny tomorrow, just that it could and the reset button is the Second Amendment. It can and has happened here, albeit on local levels, but the federal government has done some questionable things of late.

Unfortunately, if it were Germany in 1933, you would be the first on in line doing the goose step. The problem is that you beleif that you stockpiling guns will have any effect at all is a complete delusion.

 

[kaz]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.

My plan is less criminals.

A: Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
B: Eliminate all criminal activities of the government. Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
C: End the war on Drugs. Duh.
D: End government managed welfare.
E: Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act. No job, no family, no assets, no ward? Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
F: Throw the insane into "homes" for the insane.

Sounds like a plan as long as it goes with ending our inane and useless gun laws.

 

[RKMBrown]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.

My plan is less criminals.

A: Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
B: Eliminate all criminal activities of the government. Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
C: End the war on Drugs. Duh.
D: End government managed welfare.
E: Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act. No job, no family, no assets, no ward? Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
F: Throw the insane into "homes" for the insane.

Sounds like a plan as long as it goes with ending our inane and useless gun laws.

We need useful gun laws. For example, it should be legal to shoot socialists.

 

[Brain357]

I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.

Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny. Name some.

Germany in 1933 was a democracy. Arguably Venezuela under Chavez. Technically Cuba is a democracy as is Egypt and China.

The point isn't that the US is going to be a tyranny tomorrow, just that it could and the reset button is the Second Amendment. It can and has happened here, albeit on local levels, but the federal government has done some questionable things of late.

Germany in 1933 isn't modern. And it was hardly established or stable. Germany was fresh out of World War I.

 

[Bern80]

Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.

Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.

In short, make guns less lethal.

In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts. Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths. But I doubt that. The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship. They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.

Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades. The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons. Blame them.

We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society. The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting". Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades. Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire? Really? Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?

Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?

So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way? Say even on the same planes?

You are using the stupid "If the law can be violated the there shouldn't be a law" argument.

Seeing as people still speed, then we shouldn't has speed limits.

Seeing as an education can't make you think intelligently, we shouldn't have schools.

We should start by putting you in a mental institution, under constant supervision. That will go along ways to increasing the average IQ of the labor force.

that is not the argument. The argument is some people don't care about the ramifications of breaking those laws. For these people the law may as well not exist becuase it doesn't factor into their decisions making. No one is saying there shouldn't be punishment for breaking laws, simply that for some people the punishment is not a deterrent. We're trying to get you to see the paradox you've set up with this more regulatio nonsense.

We all agree that some people break laws. Because they do so we can conclude the punishment for breaking said law was not an adequate means of preventing the person from doing so. Given the severity of punishment for killing someone at all, why does it seem logical that a new law with a less severe punishment is going to deter an individual where the harsher punishment did not. It's nonsensical.

 

[kaz]

We should start by putting you in a mental institution, under constant supervision. That will go along ways to increasing the average IQ of the labor force.

It will increase unemployment as everyone who works for me would become unemployed.

Explains a lot, doesn't it? I'm a ... wait for it .... greedy capitalist ...