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

[kaz]

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.

The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.
View attachment 45010


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never disagreed with your statement, "NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them". I've posted several times sober and sane citizens have the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

I don't believe anyone convicted of domestic violence, stalking or making criminal threats, or convicted of battery, sexual battery, child or animal abuse, or ever detained as a danger to themselves or others, or convicted of felony driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be in possession of a gun ever.

The problem with this thread is M14 and other liars who constantly build straw men.

Rational people believe gun controls are necessary to mitigate gun violence in America.,

You understand all of those things you list are already prohibitions on gun ownership, right? And yet those same folks have no trouble getting guns.
So what is your solution?

Once again Wry answers the question how we keep guns from criminals by stating his opposition to criminals having guns, that doesn't advance the argument for you?

Hmm...me either...

 

[kaz]

What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.

Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.

Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.

As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).

Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.

Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.

You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.

yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry moron..

I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.

I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.

And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........

Only the clueless and the Causeless on the Right have a problem with reading comprehension while resorting to Only fallacies and claiming they are for the "gospel Truth".

Natural Rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; literally:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

I like grapefruit, but it can be kind of sour and I don't like too much sugar, it can be a trick to get the right balance. but it's sure good when you do

Too lazy to have a social hard work ethic for free; i got it, Person on the clueless and Causeless and fallacious Right.

 

[danielpalos]

How seriously can we take the clueless and Causeless Right, when they appeal to ignorance instead of working hard to acquire and possess a Constitutional clue and a Constitutional Cause.

hammer

I guess, "hard work" really really pays off for the Right. Why complain only the least wealthy are lazy.

 

[kaz]

What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.

Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.

Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.

As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).

Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.

Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.

Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia.

Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.

Actually writing a law putting certain people automatically in a militia and stating therefore they are protected by the second amendment is a devious way to limit who is protected by the second amendment. Everyone is protected by it. Just say that. Writing a law that certain people are automatically protected gives the implication that not everyone is automatically protected by it. Think about it

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?

"Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"

Yes, you probably are

I've wasted enough time on you, troll.

bye

Damn Will! I thought you were talking to yourself. I put the idiot on ignore long ago.

Here is the Operative statement from Judge Story's discourse: How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see.

It is clearly legislated as the Intent and Purpose by the legislators.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

Do you like rhubarb? I love a good rhubarb pie

A clue and a Cause is too much hard work for the Right under or form of Capitalism. Is it any wonder no one takes them seriously about working hard to get ahead.

 

[danielpalos]

What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.

Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.

Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.

As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).

Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.

Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.

You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.

yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it

Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension. I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.

 

[kaz]

Yawn.
Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do

Yep, you do. And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.

Yes. This makes you the fool, however.

LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I"). You're pitiful.

He's right.
We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures. None of them has made anyone any safer. All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.

An 11 year old child received a D on his report card. His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.

The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.

The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom. He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.

A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event. One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.

Rabbi(t) is full of shit.

One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly? Is that your standard for your own positions? That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?

 

[kaz]

Jesus Christ; Because it's just as easy to keep guns our of everyone's hands period. Good bad, left right, Nazi, socialist, nutcase radicals. Enough is enough.

How do you do that?

 

[danielpalos]

What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.

Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.

Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.

As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).

Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.

Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.

Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia.

Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.

Actually writing a law putting certain people automatically in a militia and stating therefore they are protected by the second amendment is a devious way to limit who is protected by the second amendment. Everyone is protected by it. Just say that. Writing a law that certain people are automatically protected gives the implication that not everyone is automatically protected by it. Think about it

Yes, because it is true; Only well regulated militias of Individuals of the People have literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[kaz]

Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.

I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media. I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.

And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question. You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater. Only the shooters had guns. How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?

 

[kaz]

Sorry moron..

I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.

I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.

And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........

Only the clueless and the Causeless on the Right have a problem with reading comprehension while resorting to Only fallacies and claiming they are for the "gospel Truth".

Natural Rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; literally:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

I like grapefruit, but it can be kind of sour and I don't like too much sugar, it can be a trick to get the right balance. but it's sure good when you do

Actually I'm sitting up straight. your only consistency is you are consistently wrong

 

[danielpalos]

Why should the left have any confidence in the sincerity of the Right regarding a work ethic when they are too lazy to even work hard on their reading comprehension; would they rather be competing with harder working illegals?

 

[danielpalos]

I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.

I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.

And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........

Only the clueless and the Causeless on the Right have a problem with reading comprehension while resorting to Only fallacies and claiming they are for the "gospel Truth".

Natural Rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; literally:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

I like grapefruit, but it can be kind of sour and I don't like too much sugar, it can be a trick to get the right balance. but it's sure good when you do

Actually I'm sitting up straight. your only consistency is you are consistently wrong

With Only fallacy to work with; the Only hard work the Right is good at; is self-deception.

 

[kaz]

What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.

Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.

Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.

As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).

Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.

Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.

You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.

yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it

Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension. I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.

Do they have village idiots in Canada? I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot

 

[danielpalos]

Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.

Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.

As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).

Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.

Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.

You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.

yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it

Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension. I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.

Do they have village idiots in Canada? I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot

Too difficult to work hard to have anything more than fallacy, Person on the clueless and Causeless and Lazy Right.

 

[kaz]

As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).

Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.

Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.

You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.

yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it

Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension. I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.

Do they have village idiots in Canada? I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot

Too difficult to work hard to have anything more than fallacy, Person on the clueless and Causeless and Lazy Right.

Does it really take work to be an idiot? I mean isn't that just something that you pretty much just are? Or are you saying you actually put some work into your idiocy?

 

[danielpalos]

You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.

yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it

Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension. I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.

Do they have village idiots in Canada? I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot

Too difficult to work hard to have anything more than fallacy, Person on the clueless and Causeless and Lazy Right.

Does it really take work to be an idiot? I mean isn't that just something that you pretty much just are? Or are you saying you actually put some work into your idiocy?

No. I have logic and reason to work with due to a social, hard work ethic; unlike the Right.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
I would introduce one gun law:

If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.

People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.

All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.

Locking up criminals has worked pretty well, that's been the one effective strategy

Ner - shoot the bastards - cheaper and no repeat offences.

No, death penalty cases no cost far more than life in prison. The only way to make it cheaper is to get the population overwhelmingly in favor of it, and that's not going to happen

"No, death penalty cases no cost far more than life in prison"? If you meant persons convicted and sentence to die cost more than if they were imprisoned for life, your wrong. However your sentence is nonsensical. Below are the facts:

Every death penalty sentence is reviewed, and every letter written, every motion filed, every potential witness interviewed (some several times), every stay of execution, every appeal for a new trial, and every hour of research, are billable hours paid by the taxpayers for the decades it takes before an execution is carried out.

At the same time the person convicted is in highly secure custody, and receives the same medical care, food, clothing and shelter as the rest of the inmates.

 

[Indofred]

I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
I would introduce one gun law:

If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.

People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.

All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.

Locking up criminals has worked pretty well, that's been the one effective strategy

Ner - shoot the bastards - cheaper and no repeat offences.

No, death penalty cases no cost far more than life in prison. The only way to make it cheaper is to get the population overwhelmingly in favor of it, and that's not going to happen

I was asked what I'd do, not what's likely to be popular.
That's where politicians go wrong; they're so scared of being kicked of the gravy train, they won't do what's required.