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

[RKMBrown]

The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.

See how that equivalence thing works? All the components are the same. That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.

driving is not a right, it is a privilege

law, learn it, embrace it

Guns aren't a right either. The right to bear arms doesn't mean you. A right can be regulated. And insured. And resricted.

Wrong. Wrong. Duh. Duh. What does resricted mean?

 

[kaz]

Get them out of the hands of everyone else.

Simple enough.

Criminals have guns because EVERYONE ELSE has guns.

WRONG!

Criminals have guns because they procure them on the black market, Joe. Which means if you take away everyone's guns, there will still be murders and gun crimes. This statement is the epitome of the liberal gun control agenda. What is served when everyone is unarmed except the criminal you wish to disarm?

Your logic is flawed.

Since when did the black market not include all manufacturers? Yeah, right... they only buy the "illegal" guns.

The point is that if they can buy illegal guns, they can still buy guns. And by definition honest citizens can't. Which means only the criminals are left with guns. It's an improvement on your system now where the blood and guts of women and children are splattered across walls as psychos know, correctly thanks to you, that no one will be shooting back. Nice job there, thanks to you any tragic shooting is one snap from becoming a massacre. Liberals are sick people.

 

[RKMBrown]

The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.

See how that equivalence thing works? All the components are the same. That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.

Wrong again. You already need a license to "hunt" with guns. I can own a car without driving it on public roads, a license is not required on private property. I already have to register if I'm gonna CC. No ban required. I already have homeowners insurance, auto insurance etc. Neither of which are a BAN on home-ownership or driving.

You still have to register it as non-op. When you purchase a car, you have to liscence and insure it before you drive it off the lot.

Registration is not a ban. Purchasing is the opposite of a ban. Cars can be "transported" to private property via a car carrier. The purchaser does not have to have a license or insurance.

 

[itfitzme]

Gtg

 

[itfitzme]

driving is not a right, it is a privilege

law, learn it, embrace it

Guns aren't a right either. The right to bear arms doesn't mean you. A right can be regulated. And insured. And resricted.

Wrong. Wrong. Duh. Duh. What does resricted mean?

Right, right right. Duh, duh... That's a great argument.

Restricted, to begin, means you personally don't get one because your a vagrant.

 

[itfitzme]

Wrong again. You already need a license to "hunt" with guns. I can own a car without driving it on public roads, a license is not required on private property. I already have to register if I'm gonna CC. No ban required. I already have homeowners insurance, auto insurance etc. Neither of which are a BAN on home-ownership or driving.

You still have to register it as non-op. When you purchase a car, you have to liscence and insure it before you drive it off the lot.

Registration is not a ban. Purchasing is the opposite of a ban. Cars can be "transported" to private property via a car carrier. The purchaser does not have to have a license or insurance.

Then we agree. You can have a gun if you are not a vagrant, transport it directly to your private residence, and keep it there. And, as long as it is impossible accidental discharge into a public area, you can have ammo.

 

[Bern80]

1) Complete and thorough background checks.
2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
4) Required insurance for gun ownership.

To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?

If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.

This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do. They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.

Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.

That's a flat out lie. Show me advertising targeted at people with mental health issues or people that have a history of violence. You know as well as I do if we simply substitute the noun gun with cars your statement becomes preposterous which is why you have to lie about the NRA and gun manufacturer's now.

 

[JoeB131]

Pot is completely illegal. Yet it's everywhere. Stop dodging and explain why the same wouldn't happen with guns. Here you go. You make guns illegal, then... and it doesn't work with pot because...

Pot Grows in the ground.

Guns have to be manufactured.

Or you could just print one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMzGuboH9o]Plastic Guns - How Soon Until Criminals Use Them? - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah, it'll be very funny when the blow up in the faces of crooks.

 

[JoeB131]

To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?

If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.

This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do. They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.

Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.

That's a flat out lie. Show me advertising targeted at people with mental health issues or people that have a history of violence.

 

[JoeB131]

Considering you need 66% of congress and 75% of the states to get "major restrictions" those numbers mean squat.

And again, polls are useless, because the way you ask the question contributes to the answer.

Again- ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE- and the Second is about Militias again.

Then you'd better be worried about polls.

Do you jack off at night over the thought of 5 out of 9 people lording over your daily life, and deciding what is your right, and what is it?

Guy, you are the one who wants to hide behind Heller every time you see a poll that shows that 94% want stricter background checks and 70% would increase the amount of restrictions on guns.

I'd say, leave it to the people. Let's have national plebasites on this shit.

 

[RKMBrown]

You still have to register it as non-op. When you purchase a car, you have to liscence and insure it before you drive it off the lot.

Registration is not a ban. Purchasing is the opposite of a ban. Cars can be "transported" to private property via a car carrier. The purchaser does not have to have a license or insurance.

Then we agree. You can have a gun if you are not a vagrant, transport it directly to your private residence, and keep it there. And, as long as it is impossible accidental discharge into a public area, you can have ammo.

Do you practice at being an idiot or does it come naturally?

I have lots of gun. Want to see? Why don't you walk your vagrant ass over to my place, I'll show em to ya. You want to steal my lawn mower (tractor) cause I might drive it on a public road? ROFL why don't you lie in the road and see if that stops me.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc). Leftists do that. Know the difference.

 

[Pogo]

If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.

This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do. They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.

Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.

That's a flat out lie. Show me advertising targeted at people with mental health issues or people that have a history of violence.

Bing. Fucking. Go. There's the issue.

 

[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.

Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc). Leftists do that. Know the difference.

by that definition democrats are not the party of modern liberals... huh? Dude if you want to use liberal in the classic sense you have to say classic liberals. Liberals of today are the leftist democrats. Democrats and the media redefined the term to mean libtard.

 

[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.

Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc). Leftists do that. Know the difference.

I'm a classic liberal, I know the difference in the terms well. There is nothing liberal about liberals. The "liberals" are authoritarians. But theoretical arguments about what words mean is irrelevant when they all walk and quack the same. You're going to be hard pressed to give more than a few actual examples in American politics of the difference.

I agree with your point, but a more productive way to bring it up would be to not ignore how people use the term, but say they use it wrong, rather than doing things like chastising me for calling people who call themselves liberal liberals.

 

[kaz]

Registration is not a ban. Purchasing is the opposite of a ban. Cars can be "transported" to private property via a car carrier. The purchaser does not have to have a license or insurance.

Then we agree. You can have a gun if you are not a vagrant, transport it directly to your private residence, and keep it there. And, as long as it is impossible accidental discharge into a public area, you can have ammo.

Do you practice at being an idiot or does it come naturally?

I have lots of gun. Want to see? Why don't you walk your vagrant ass over to my place, I'll show em to ya. You want to steal my lawn mower (tractor) cause I might drive it on a public road? ROFL why don't you lie in the road and see if that stops me.

This is the internet age. Idiots are no longer confined to ply their trade in only one village...

 

[Pogo]

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.

Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc). Leftists do that. Know the difference.

by that definition democrats are not the party of modern liberals... huh? Dude if you want to use liberal in the classic sense you have to say classic liberals. Liberals of today are the leftist democrats.

Only if you want your words to mean different things depending on what's convenient at the time, dood.

Hey, that's the price of demonization. Should have thought about that beforehand.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc). Leftists do that. Know the difference.

I'm a classic liberal, I know the difference in the terms well. There is nothing liberal about liberals. The "liberals" are authoritarians. But theoretical arguments about what words mean is irrelevant when they all walk and quack the same. You're going to be hard pressed to give more than a few actual examples in American politics of the difference.

I agree with your point, but a more productive way to bring it up would be to not ignore how people use the term, but say they use it wrong, rather than doing things like chastising me for calling people who call themselves liberal liberals.

There is nothing "liberal" about authoritarianism. They're polar opposites.

I didn't "chastize" you -- I corrected you. When I chastize you, you'll know it.

 

[kaz]

Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc). Leftists do that. Know the difference.

I'm a classic liberal, I know the difference in the terms well. There is nothing liberal about liberals. The "liberals" are authoritarians. But theoretical arguments about what words mean is irrelevant when they all walk and quack the same. You're going to be hard pressed to give more than a few actual examples in American politics of the difference.

I agree with your point, but a more productive way to bring it up would be to not ignore how people use the term, but say they use it wrong, rather than doing things like chastising me for calling people who call themselves liberal liberals.

There is nothing "liberal" about authoritarianism. They're polar opposites.

I didn't "chastize" you -- I corrected you. When I chastize you, you'll know it.

You said "know the difference." I do, but again, calling people liberal who call themselves liberal isn't not knowing the difference.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.

See how that equivalence thing works? All the components are the same. That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.

driving is not a right, it is a privilege

law, learn it, embrace it

Guns aren't a right either. The right to bear arms doesn't mean you. A right can be regulated. And insured. And resricted.

The Courts disagree with you. The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. By the way? Why are you ignoring me? I repeat New York, Chicago and Washington DC prove that strict gun control does not work. Russia, Mexico, South Africa and even England prove that strict gun control does not work. Why do I say that? because around them are cities counties States and Countries with less strict gun laws with less crime, violence and murder. In fact less control against law abiding citizens leads to less crime, less violence and less murder. Shall I cite the studies again?