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

[Wry Catcher]

Unconstitutional. Owning a firearm is right protected by the Constitution it can not be infringed, Licensing infringes the right.

Of course. An expected response which leaves out any mention of the daily carnage which costs the lives of innocents across our nation. How many must die or suffer grievous injuries before rational people are able to discuss rational gun policy?

How fucked up in the head do you need to be to see what a stupid argument that is. By your rationale I could substitute all kinds of things that are involved in more injry and eath than guns. How many innocent kids have to die or be injured for you to give up the selfish convenience of driving a car. What a selfish little fuck you are for not giving yours up when it could save so many lives......See? Sounds pretty stupid when substitute guns with other inanimate objects doesn't it?

See my remark to Marty, above. I'm not "fucked up in the head" nor is my desire to see a rational gun policy fucked up. A car is made to transport, not to kill. A gun is made to kill. Yes, some guns are collectables and some are used for recreation but all were made for one purpose - to kill. Some cars are used to kill intentionally, but too few to be noteworthy.

In the four points I posted no where is it suggested all guns should be outlawed, but some human beings must be prevented from ever owning, possessing and having in their custody and contol a gun. And 'gun runners' who might povide a gun to someone unfit, i.e. unlicensed, are as dangerous to innocent citizens as any dealer of dangerous drugs.

 

[Nosmo King]

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

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

Flying in something as bulky as pot makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.

And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there! Pot!

Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.

You're chasing this:

While ignoring this:

 

[P@triot]

Of course. An expected response which leaves out any mention of the daily carnage which costs the lives of innocents across our nation. How many must die or suffer grievous injuries before rational people are able to discuss rational gun policy?

How fucked up in the head do you need to be to see what a stupid argument that is. By your rationale I could substitute all kinds of things that are involved in more injry and eath than guns. How many innocent kids have to die or be injured for you to give up the selfish convenience of driving a car. What a selfish little fuck you are for not giving yours up when it could save so many lives......See? Sounds pretty stupid when substitute guns with other inanimate objects doesn't it?

See my remark to Marty, above. I'm not "fucked up in the head" nor is my desire to see a rational gun policy fucked up. A car is made to transport, not to kill. A gun is made to kill. Yes, some guns are collectables and some are used for recreation but all were made for one purpose - to kill. Some cars are used to kill intentionally, but too few to be noteworthy.

In the four points I posted no where is it suggested all guns should be outlawed, but some human beings must be prevented from ever owning, possessing and having in their custody and contol a gun. And 'gun runners' who might povide a gun to someone unfit, i.e. unlicensed, are as dangerous to innocent citizens as any dealer of dangerous drugs.

First, everyone agrees 100% with you that some people should never own a firearm. But those people have been addressed by law already (a felon, a person with mental health issues, and people guilty of domestic violence have all been banned from possessing firearms).

Second, would you guys please stop with the absurd "an automobile was not designed to kill somebody" narrative? More people are dying from automobiles than they ever have from guns. Who cares what the "intent" was at the time of manufacturing?!? A life lost is a life lost. When you talk about the intent behind the manufacturing, you prove it's not about human life and the you could care less that people are dying.

 

[martybegan]

Flying in something as bulky as pot makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.

And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there! Pot!

Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.

You're chasing this:

While ignoring this:

I'm refuting your specific point, which i seem to have done pretty well considering you had to go for snark and shock value.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, the Japanese are Awesome and their women are Sexy as hell.

And they don't go around murdering each other with glee like we do.

Then move there, bitch.

Why?

Frankly, I want to fix this country.

The way to do that is to slap down the religous nuts, the gun nuts and the greedy assholes pulling your strings.

No Joe - you want to BREAK this country and drag it down to the level if the rest of the 3rd world shit-holes like Cuba so you can feel better about yourself.

You've been losing for 58 years Joe. You're never going to win your battle. Either get the fuck out of the U.S. (since it was founded on everything you hate - freedom, prosperity, etc.) or accept being a miserable loser the rest of your life.

We prefer you would move so we don't have to hear you bitch for the rest of your miserable life.

 

[Wry Catcher]

From 'Rolling Stoned'?

Gimme a fucking break.

I stayed out of this thread for 455 posts.

Know why? Because the answer to the OPs question is really simple.....

Confiscation. It's what dimocraps want.

Since they know they can't get away with that, they'll slowly and incrementally strangle your gun rights until you're as comfortable as the proverbial.....

And why not? They been getting away with it for the past 100+ years.

Oh, they'll play the "I'm truly concerned" bit. They'll do their best to convince you that all they really want is 'common sense' gun control.

They'll do everything they can to make you think they're being reasonable while publicly disagreeing with their far-left brethren who are telling you the truth about what the dimocraps want.

But, in the end, confiscation is what dimocraps want.

ALL of them. ALL.

And the honest ones...... My bad, there are no honest ones.

We're talking dimocraps here.

And you'll fall for it. Just like you always do.

You're not only ridiculous, you're also a liar of mass absurdity. I'm a registered Democrat and I do not want to see the government confiscate all guns. I want, however, only licensed, trained and responsible citizens to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

BTW, ALL of your posts taint those who disagree with my opinion appear to be on your side, and thus make them appear to be as mentally disturbed as you. Who or what made you into the hateful person you have become?

 

[P@triot]

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

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

Flying in something as bulky as pot makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.

And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there! Pot!

Uhhh, genius...

Pot is a perishable commodity.

Guns are not. There's already enough here to arm 10 Revolutions.

 

[P@triot]

From 'Rolling Stoned'?

Gimme a fucking break.

I stayed out of this thread for 455 posts.

Know why? Because the answer to the OPs question is really simple.....

Confiscation. It's what dimocraps want.

Since they know they can't get away with that, they'll slowly and incrementally strangle your gun rights until you're as comfortable as the proverbial.....

And why not? They been getting away with it for the past 100+ years.

Oh, they'll play the "I'm truly concerned" bit. They'll do their best to convince you that all they really want is 'common sense' gun control.

They'll do everything they can to make you think they're being reasonable while publicly disagreeing with their far-left brethren who are telling you the truth about what the dimocraps want.

But, in the end, confiscation is what dimocraps want.

ALL of them. ALL.

And the honest ones...... My bad, there are no honest ones.

We're talking dimocraps here.

And you'll fall for it. Just like you always do.

You're not only ridiculous, you're also a liar of mass absurdity. I'm a registered Democrat and I do not want to see the government confiscate all guns. I want, however, only licensed, trained and responsible citizens to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

BTW, ALL of your posts taint those who disagree with my opinion appear to be on your side, and thus make them appear to be as mentally disturbed as you. Who or what made you into the hateful person you have become?

Wry - what happens when exactly what you want comes to fruition and then a criminal breaks into a car and steals a gun?

Furthermore, drugs are outlawed and have been all through the 1900's, yet they are as rampant as ever. Are you really so naïve as to have no knowledge of that little thing called the "black market"?

 

[Nosmo King]

Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.

You're chasing this:

While ignoring this:

I'm refuting your specific point, which i seem to have done pretty well considering you had to go for snark and shock value.

I've been trying to snuff out yet another gun lover's delight: the red herring. But you seem to fall for it hook, line and sinker, to borrow an apt cliché. If you bother to read the posts preceding this, perhaps you will understand, but perhaps not.

 

[martybegan]

You're chasing this:

While ignoring this:

I'm refuting your specific point, which i seem to have done pretty well considering you had to go for snark and shock value.

I've been trying to snuff out yet another gun lover's delight: the red herring. But you seem to fall for it hook, line and sinker, to borrow an apt cliché. If you bother to read the posts preceding this, perhaps you will understand, but perhaps not.

Still dodging your specific point made, and how I effectively debunked it.

And we all know whats in the rest of this post, more gun grabbing liberal bullshit, some of it being piled up by yourself.

Again, nice attempt at shock value, but it just shows your argument is weak and based on emotion.

You also dont understand the concept of a red herring argument evidently.

 

[Wry Catcher]

From 'Rolling Stoned'?

Gimme a fucking break.

I stayed out of this thread for 455 posts.

Know why? Because the answer to the OPs question is really simple.....

Confiscation. It's what dimocraps want.

Since they know they can't get away with that, they'll slowly and incrementally strangle your gun rights until you're as comfortable as the proverbial.....

And why not? They been getting away with it for the past 100+ years.

Oh, they'll play the "I'm truly concerned" bit. They'll do their best to convince you that all they really want is 'common sense' gun control.

They'll do everything they can to make you think they're being reasonable while publicly disagreeing with their far-left brethren who are telling you the truth about what the dimocraps want.

But, in the end, confiscation is what dimocraps want.

ALL of them. ALL.

And the honest ones...... My bad, there are no honest ones.

We're talking dimocraps here.

And you'll fall for it. Just like you always do.

You're not only ridiculous, you're also a liar of mass absurdity. I'm a registered Democrat and I do not want to see the government confiscate all guns. I want, however, only licensed, trained and responsible citizens to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

BTW, ALL of your posts taint those who disagree with my opinion appear to be on your side, and thus make them appear to be as mentally disturbed as you. Who or what made you into the hateful person you have become?

Wry - what happens when exactly what you want comes to fruition and then a criminal breaks into a car and steals a gun?

Furthermore, drugs are outlawed and have been all through the 1900's, yet they are as rampant as ever. Are you really so naïve as to have no knowledge of that little thing called the "black market"?

There is no panacea to cure all ills. What I've suggested is a rational step in fixing an out of control situation. In response to your points:

1. The criminal unless licensed will face one-year in jail, a $5,000 fine and lose for life his/her ability to own, possess, etc. a gun.

2. Of course the war on drugs is a failure. Prohibition does not work (for drugs, alcohol or guns). All need to be controlled. For example, Marijuana (MJ) is used recreationally by millions of Americans every day and its use supports a criminal enterprise and a multi billion dollar black market. MJ should, IMO, be removed from Schedule I and treated as two other commonly used and more dangerous drugs - alcohol and tobacco. Both of which are taxed and regulated by each state.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How fucked up in the head do you need to be to see what a stupid argument that is. By your rationale I could substitute all kinds of things that are involved in more injry and eath than guns. How many innocent kids have to die or be injured for you to give up the selfish convenience of driving a car. What a selfish little fuck you are for not giving yours up when it could save so many lives......See? Sounds pretty stupid when substitute guns with other inanimate objects doesn't it?

See my remark to Marty, above. I'm not "fucked up in the head" nor is my desire to see a rational gun policy fucked up. A car is made to transport, not to kill. A gun is made to kill. Yes, some guns are collectables and some are used for recreation but all were made for one purpose - to kill. Some cars are used to kill intentionally, but too few to be noteworthy.

In the four points I posted no where is it suggested all guns should be outlawed, but some human beings must be prevented from ever owning, possessing and having in their custody and contol a gun. And 'gun runners' who might povide a gun to someone unfit, i.e. unlicensed, are as dangerous to innocent citizens as any dealer of dangerous drugs.

First, everyone agrees 100% with you that some people should never own a firearm. But those people have been addressed by law already (a felon, a person with mental health issues, and people guilty of domestic violence have all been banned from possessing firearms).

Second, would you guys please stop with the absurd "an automobile was not designed to kill somebody" narrative? More people are dying from automobiles than they ever have from guns. Who cares what the "intent" was at the time of manufacturing?!? A life lost is a life lost. When you talk about the intent behind the manufacturing, you prove it's not about human life and the you could care less that people are dying.

Drivers are licensed and anyone cited who drove with a suspended or revoked license (in CA) is guilty of a misdemeanor and earns a mandatory jail sentence. Does it prevent all such drivers from getting behind the wheel? Nope, but those that get a second or subsequent generally get six months county time and on one occasion I saw someone with three new citations for 14601 CVC sentenced to six months on each count to be served consecutively and placed on three years supervised probation.

Cars too are made safer each year, generally due to government regulations. Government regulates the legal speed limit and other the rules of the road which have reduced death and injury - seat belts and air bags as the most obvious. Can you imagine a "hot rod" equivalent of a fully automatic AK 47 being street legal"?

 

[kaz]

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

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.

So what about answering my question this time?

Suppose we put a stiff tax on abortion. Is that Constitutional?

I would think it would be...yes.

However, one is a retail sale and another is a medical procedure; not sure how you'd go about taxing some medical procedures more than others but; okay. If you don't buy a gun, you go home and get upset. If you can't get your fetus aborted, the lives of 2 human beings are irrevocably changed... It's a bit of a false analogy.

At least you're consistent on the "yes." Though your follow on paragraph is bizarre. The point was whether or not our Constitutional rights can be sold to us by the government. I say no, you say yes. What that has to do with retail versus medical I don't know for this question, but again at least you were consistent that you believe government can sell us our Constitutional rights.

 

[kaz]

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

My plan is less criminals.

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

I cannot begin to tell you how absurd you are.

The only way to preserve the 2nd Amendment is to do away with all of the lesser amendments like free speech, right to LL&H...flimsy ones.

What does that have to do with anything regarding these posts?

 

[kaz]

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

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

Flying in something as bulky as pot makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.

What a non-post. Coke and other drugs are also flown and shipped in and carried across the border. People travel illegally from Mexico constantly and the left is working to keep that flow going. So...

And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there! Pot!

...what about taking your hand out of your pants and addressing the question? If it's that easy to refute, refute it with content.

 

[kaz]

You're chasing this:

...

While ignoring this:

...

Begging the question. The point of the discussion is HOW we reduce gun violence, you're just assuming the truth of your own position.

However, the one dead in your picture is emblematic of your plan to make sure the murderer has the option of keeping blowing more people away, doesn't it? Maximize the gore, use it for pathetic political hay. The plan of the Leftists in this country.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The efforts to comport guns with drugs or cars is absurd and desperate. Cars kill and so do drugs and guns. Yet the former are controlled and the latter is not. What if there were no controls on guns whatsoever?

If the spirit of the Second Amendment were fully accepted, drunks and punks, the mentally ill, drug dealers and rapists, felons and terrorists would all be free to own, possess, and have in their custody and control every manner of "arms".

Even the most ardent gun lovers acknowledge some restriction, at least those who are sane. The debate should not now or ever be based on the language of the Second, but upon reasonable and rational discussion of what is in the best interest of our nation and its people.

 

[Nosmo King]

You're chasing this:

...

While ignoring this:

...

Begging the question. The point of the discussion is HOW we reduce gun violence, you're just assuming the truth of your own position.

However, the one dead in your picture is emblematic of your plan to make sure the murderer has the option of keeping blowing more people away, doesn't it? Maximize the gore, use it for pathetic political hay. The plan of the Leftists in this country.

Sometimes a bit of reality needs to be injected into the argument against gun violence. That argument has a habit of being bogged down in the academic rationalizations and the occasional red herring proffered by those who would rather simply refer to their own sterling experiences with guns while they ignore the tragic experiences we need to reduce.

 

[Spoonman]

The efforts to comport guns with drugs or cars is absurd and desperate. Cars kill and so do drugs and guns. Yet the former are controlled and the latter is not. What if there were no controls on guns whatsoever?

If the spirit of the Second Amendment were fully accepted, drunks and punks, the mentally ill, drug dealers and rapists, felons and terrorists would all be free to own, possess, and have in their custody and control every manner of "arms".

Even the most ardent gun lovers acknowledge some restriction, at least those who are sane. The debate should not now or ever be based on the language of the Second, but upon reasonable and rational discussion of what is in the best interest of our nation and its people.

how are cars controlled? do you need a background check to get one? Drugs are controlled? so you are saying our controls have eleiminated or even minimized deaths from them. we don't have a drug problem?

 

[kaz]

You're chasing this:

...

While ignoring this:

...

Begging the question. The point of the discussion is HOW we reduce gun violence, you're just assuming the truth of your own position.

However, the one dead in your picture is emblematic of your plan to make sure the murderer has the option of keeping blowing more people away, doesn't it? Maximize the gore, use it for pathetic political hay. The plan of the Leftists in this country.

Sometimes a bit of reality needs to be injected into the argument against gun violence. That argument has a habit of being bogged down in the academic rationalizations and the occasional red herring proffered by those who would rather simply refer to their own sterling experiences with guns while they ignore the tragic experiences we need to reduce.

So let's call your guy with the bullet hole the first victim in Washington. The other 11 dead people to you are "red herrings." Got it. I don't think their families think that.