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

[kaz]

Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on. Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm. The opposition to that cannot be termed rational

Of course it's rational.

1) You OK with having to register with the government, pay a fee, tell them what you are going to say and get it approved to have freedom of speech?

2) All they do is say "no" anyway, if you want registration, at least demand criminals who fail be arrested not just told no, so it really is totally pointless the way it works now.

Also, you are begging the question, you are assuming the truth of your position that background checks prevent anyone from buying guns.

And the thread isn't just about background checks, that's just one thing. Gun laws clearly do only restrict honest citizens, and they particularly prevent people from having guns to protect themselves when they need it. How many people in the Washingon Navy yard owned guns, guns they were legally prohibited from having when they were being shot and and killed?

 

[The Rabbi]

Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on. Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm. The opposition to that cannot be termed rational

Of course it's rational.

1) You OK with having to register with the government, pay a fee, tell them what you are going to say and get it approved to have freedom of speech?

2) All they do is say "no" anyway, if you want registration, at least demand criminals who fail be arrested not just told no, so it really is totally pointless the way it works now.

Also, you are begging the question, you are assuming the truth of your position that background checks prevent anyone from buying guns.

And the thread isn't just about background checks, that's just one thing. Gun laws clearly do only restrict honest citizens, and they particularly prevent people from having guns to protect themselves when they need it. How many people in the Washingon Navy yard owned guns, guns they were legally prohibited from having when they were being shot and and killed?

Gun control laws have a proven track record of failure for 100 years. Only the terminally stupid can believe otherwise.

 

[kaz]

Well, I'm not a liberal

Rim shot!

What's the punch line?

I'm also not a RW Nutcase. Look in mirror kaz

I'm not an RW at all, so how does that make sense?

you argue for nothing but left wing politics and the Democratic party, so how does that make sense either.

You may want to stop at the gas station and buy a map. Just a suggestion

yes you are, but you are not 100% RW nutter on everything, nor am I liberal on anything, but basically you told me to fck off, so I returned the favor.

Yes, I'm against the wars in the middle east and our presence there, want to slash military spending by 1/3 to 1/2 and make it defensively focused. I'm pro-choice, against the war on drugs and think all drugs should be legal as well as prostitution, gambling, euthanasia and I oppose all gay sex sodomy laws and government marriage for ... heterosexuals.

You know, like all the other right wing nut jobs you know. You are functionally retarded

 

[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.

Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes. Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational. If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great. And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.

The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns. They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.

I don't believe the govt has any power to "control" guns. It's clear that even conservative supreme courts, like this one, believe the government has the power to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons. Both the Miller and Heller decisions affirm the govt has the power to not allow individuals to buy anything they desire, and fully automatic weapons can be "banned." The recent Scotus case on the SF law of securing firearms in the home didn't please many gun owners. I was more ambivalent. I don't see why I should have to lock up or carry on my person guns in my home, because I don't have kids at home. My dog is not likely to accidentally shoot anyone. But, obviously, some adults with kids are irresponsible.

But, it's statistically proven that in crime fighting terms, strict and strictly enforced enhanced sentencing for fire arm crimes are effective. No one should have a problem with that.

Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on. Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm. The opposition to that cannot be termed rational. And it's based on a paranoia that the "gummit is keeping a list" but of course few seemed concerned when the "gummit was keeping a list of their telephone calls." And, even then, we found a way to prevent that. Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting. But if they'd prevent one mass shooting .... imagine the horror of someone shooting every kid in a kindergarten ... or a bible study group.

We don't even identify all the kids in school who have dyslexia or ADD, let alone identify teenagers who are becoming schizophrenic. I'd think this problem is even larger than background checks, but it would be a lot harder to solve.

Thanks for a thoughtful post on this important issue.

Yes, bendog is arguing with non-liberals and being thanked by liberals, he's not liberal you know, LOL. He is a tool though

 

[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.

Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes. Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational. If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great. And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.

The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns. They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.

You've offered zero in terms of rational ways to "control guns." you've only continued to insist that we only focus on restricting guns for law abiding citizens

How have I focused on restricting guns for law abiding citizens?

How is suggesting that the 10th Amendment be applied allowing each state to determine if gun owners or those who want to possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed restricts gun ownership by "law abiding citizens"?

Leaving out the usual Second Amendment default opinion, how is that more restrictive than requiring a person who has voted all of his or her life a special ID?

Can freedom of speech be restricted by the 10th amendment?

The 10th amendment says rights that are not Constitutionally protected can be limited, and the 14th says that applies to State laws as well, so how can States restrict Constitutionally protected gun laws?

You really, seriously don't understand the basics of how the Constitution works

 

[kaz]

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

Not with the courts doing their job, they wouldn't. Unfortunately being on the courts has turned into an opportunity for judges to implement their ideologies rather than do their Constitutional roles. Except in Roberts case, his priority is his career and his legacy, he doesn't give a shit about the law or his country. I respect the leftist judges more than him

 

[kaz]

Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on. Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm. The opposition to that cannot be termed rational

Of course it's rational.

1) You OK with having to register with the government, pay a fee, tell them what you are going to say and get it approved to have freedom of speech?

2) All they do is say "no" anyway, if you want registration, at least demand criminals who fail be arrested not just told no, so it really is totally pointless the way it works now.

Also, you are begging the question, you are assuming the truth of your position that background checks prevent anyone from buying guns.

And the thread isn't just about background checks, that's just one thing. Gun laws clearly do only restrict honest citizens, and they particularly prevent people from having guns to protect themselves when they need it. How many people in the Washingon Navy yard owned guns, guns they were legally prohibited from having when they were being shot and and killed?

Gun control laws have a proven track record of failure for 100 years. Only the terminally stupid can believe otherwise.

I agree they are a failure for their supposed intent. Their real intent is for government to identify and control threats, and for that it has been staggeringly effective

 

[frigidweirdo]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

 

[kaz]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

 

[Wry Catcher]

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"! I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance! Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.

 

[idb]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

 

[2aguy]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas. I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people. They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides. We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem. In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park. Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.

Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously. In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards. These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.

We aren't locking up violent people, they get out. The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.

Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot. And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up. In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.

Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime. Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.

You don't get that picture because of the media.

And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.

Our people like to be prepared. And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here. No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes. Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational. If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great. And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.

The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns. They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.

I don't believe the govt has any power to "control" guns. It's clear that even conservative supreme courts, like this one, believe the government has the power to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons. Both the Miller and Heller decisions affirm the govt has the power to not allow individuals to buy anything they desire, and fully automatic weapons can be "banned." The recent Scotus case on the SF law of securing firearms in the home didn't please many gun owners. I was more ambivalent. I don't see why I should have to lock up or carry on my person guns in my home, because I don't have kids at home. My dog is not likely to accidentally shoot anyone. But, obviously, some adults with kids are irresponsible.

But, it's statistically proven that in crime fighting terms, strict and strictly enforced enhanced sentencing for fire arm crimes are effective. No one should have a problem with that.

Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on. Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm. The opposition to that cannot be termed rational. And it's based on a paranoia that the "gummit is keeping a list" but of course few seemed concerned when the "gummit was keeping a list of their telephone calls." And, even then, we found a way to prevent that. Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting. But if they'd prevent one mass shooting .... imagine the horror of someone shooting every kid in a kindergarten ... or a bible study group.

We don't even identify all the kids in school who have dyslexia or ADD, let alone identify teenagers who are becoming schizophrenic. I'd think this problem is even larger than background checks, but it would be a lot harder to solve.

Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm.

Sorry, but they do...a false positive prevents law abiding people from getting guns all the time, and they have stats on it....it is much more than you think. And not one of the mass shooters has been stopped by background checks, many of whom passed background checks and then killed people, or those who couldn't pass background checks, Columbine and Sandy Hook, although I am not aware that he couldn't have passed one, simply stole or bought their guns illegally.

And if Background checks do not prevent career criminals from getting guns......what is the point?

or a bible study group.

Do you realize that there have been other church shootings? And that of the church shootings where the church or temple were gun free zones the body count was higher, and where there were armed citizens in the churches the body count was way lower....I posted it, it was like 15 dead in the gun free zones and only 2-3 in the non gun free zones.

But to get back to the background check.....if they won't stop the bad guys from getting guns....then why have them?

Licensing and registration of guns is pointless, uses up police resources and also do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns.....what is the point to those measures?

Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting. But if they'd prevent one mass shooting

In fact, mass shootings are the crimes that background checks will do the least to prevent, since almost all of the mass shooters either could already pass a background check, or simply steal their guns. So again...what is the point?

The simplest and most effective gun control......if you catch someone breaking the law with a gun...lock them up....if you catch a felon merely possessing a gun...lock them up.

Now that may seem too easy a solution....but I just posted a thread on Richmond, California...the police knew 17 individuals who were responsible for 70% of the gun crime in a city of 100,000 people. We had a shooting gallery here in chicago over the Independence day weekend. A child was killed, the shooters were targeting the kids father, a high ranking gang leader. He has had over 40 arrests...and was recently arrested on a weapon possession charge....and was released the very next day.

It isn't law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection that are the problem. We have known, repeat offenders who commit the majority of the gun crime in this country. Locking them up for a long time would reduce our gun violence. Meaningless paperwork for law abiding, peaceful citizens isn't going to stop the gun violence.

 

[2aguy]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

Should not? You really mean can't. They still haven't addressed licensing, registration, or magazine limits and how they would stop one crime or mass shooting or why they are even needed.

 

[idb]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas. I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people. They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides. We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem. In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park. Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.

Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously. In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards. These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.

We aren't locking up violent people, they get out. The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.

Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot. And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up. In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.

Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime. Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.

You don't get that picture because of the media.

And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.

Our people like to be prepared. And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here. No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.

What rubbish.
No First World country has more mass shootings.

 

[2aguy]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas. I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people. They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides. We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem. In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park. Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.

Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously. In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards. These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.

We aren't locking up violent people, they get out. The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.

Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot. And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up. In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.

Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime. Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.

You don't get that picture because of the media.

And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.

Our people like to be prepared. And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here. No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.

What rubbish.
No First World country has more mass shootings.

Why do you exclude places like Mexico...you guys always tell us that gun control will prevent gun violence...and it doesn't. Europe has been less violent than the U.S. But keep in mind....the countries of Europe also marched innocent men, women and children to death camps....and if you take that number of people compared to the gun crime rate in the states, there is no comparison...but you guys always dismiss that....and we aren't talking war dead.....we are talking France and the other countries handing over citizens to the nazis for murder.....

and the criminals of Europe can get guns when they want or need them....I have posted links to European law enforcement who describe how easy it is to get fully automatic weapons in Europe....and grenades and rocket propelled grenades.....they just don't use guns as often...it is a cultural difference.

and now that Europe is importing immigrants from cultures that are completely alien to the values and cultures in Europe, and are far more violent....you are going to see a dramatic increase in your violent crime, including gun crime.

 

[kaz]

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean. It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless. This is gross ignorance. Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.

I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"! I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance! Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.

Is this the part where you still don't grasp that rights can be limited with due process?

 

[kaz]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

I see, so another binary liberal argument, we can lock up everyone who's a threat or no one, there is nothing in the middle. Tell me how you're smarter than Republicans because you aren't all black and white like they are again?

So do you give people who come to your house your life savings or do you shoot them?

 

[kaz]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas. I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people. They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides. We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem. In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park. Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.

Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously. In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards. These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.

We aren't locking up violent people, they get out. The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.

Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot. And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up. In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.

Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime. Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.

You don't get that picture because of the media.

And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.

Our people like to be prepared. And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here. No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.

What rubbish.
No First World country has more mass shootings.

So you want to export blacks and Hispanics? What do you have in mind?

 

[idb]

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.

Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country. Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?

I see, so another binary liberal argument, we can lock up everyone who's a threat or no one, there is nothing in the middle. Tell me how you're smarter than Republicans because you aren't all black and white like they are again?

So do you give people who come to your house your life savings or do you shoot them?

What are you talking about?
You're arguing against yourself...certainly not against anything I've said.

Explain to me again how having the highest incarceration rate in the world has made you safer?