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

[Bern80]

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.

It depends on the argument. You, I don't think, are calling for the outright ban of guns. Some people on here, like CandyCorn, are.

Comparing how the two are regulated, I actually would not have a problem if guns were regulated similarily to cars.

 

[earlycuyler]

The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone

For gunmakers, the political fight over assault rifles and high-capacity pistols is about more than just profits – it's about the militarization of the marketplace and represents a desperate bid by gunmakers to prop up a decaying business. The once-dependable market for traditional hunting guns has fallen off a cliff. To adapt, the firearms industry has embraced a business strategy that requires it to place the weapons of war favored by deranged killers like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner into the homes and holsters of as many Americans as possible. "They're not selling your dad's hunting rifle or shotgun," says Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a top industry watchdog. "They're selling military-bred weaponry."

As recently as 2008, shotguns, rifles and other traditional hunting weapons made up half of all new civilian gun sales in America, according to SEC documents – a brisk billion-dollar business. Today, hunting guns account for less than a quarter of the market, and the hunting industry is forecasting a 24 percent drop in revenue by 2025. Gunmakers are on the wrong side of the same demographic curves that haunt the modern Republican Party. Its customer base is too old, too white, too male and too Southern. According to Gallup, 61 percent of white males in the South own guns today. Nationwide, just 18 percent of Latinos do. "The white males are aging and dying off," says Sugarmann. Flooding the market with battle-ready guns, he says, "is an effort to find one new, shiny thing to sell them."

Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

As usual, you haven't "got it". The red herring here is the notion proffered by gun lovers that as other things are illegal yet still obtainable, any gun laws will be similarly ineffective, in spite of convictions for the aforementioned crimes.

Gun lovers seem to think that as nothing can be 100% effective, nothing should be done. that's ridiculous.

 

[rightwinger]

My plan is quite simple

Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not

 

[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.

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?

How are cars controlled? Well, let's start with lights, seat belts and air bags - all regulated by the government to make the product safer (and in effect an infringement on the rights of auto producers). To operate a car one needs a license and most need to buy insurance if they own a car. The license requires one to understand the rules of the road, have acceptable vision and operate the vehicle safely or lose their license to operate a motor vehicle.

 

[earlycuyler]

My plan is quite simple

Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not

Kind of they do. I remember my first purchase. It was in Placer County CA, and we had to wait 3 days for the check to come back. Nopthing wrong with that. I was even able to shoot it while I waited.

 

[Bern80]

My plan is quite simple

Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not

Okay, this made me chuckle. You and me both.

 

[candycorn]

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.

One is a matter of health and one is a matter of vanity; I would imagine that taxes on heart surgeries would be of more grave concern than taxes on weapons you want to purchase.

 

[candycorn]

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

Great, lets ban cars too. Oh wait, the TT&L is unconstitutional since it prevents poor people from buying them.

This is how goofy the argument has gotten in the "defense" of life-robbing weapons.

Cars, at least in most states, have to have liability insurance which, at least holds the drivers somewhat financially responsible for their WMDs. Will you agree that there should be the same stipulation for gun owners and their WMDs then--if you're going to hold on to this analogy?

There's nothing goofy about it. Guns are inanimate objects. Cars are inanimate objects. In the case of both if used by a person irresponsibly or malicioulsy they can and are involved in injury and death. The differences are their physical forms. My analogy needs know further defense. Yours does given the similarities between the two objects.

If my car wrecks into your car, I'm required to carry liability insurance that will fix your property.

Shouldn't we do the same thing with weapons--force each one to have liability insurance in case they injure someone?

Afterall, they're the same thing...right?

 

[kaz]

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.

As usual, you haven't "got it". The red herring here is the notion proffered by gun lovers that as other things are illegal yet still obtainable, any gun laws will be similarly ineffective, in spite of convictions for the aforementioned crimes.

Actually, it's not a "red herring" it's an excellent point. Unenforceable laws just train the population to not respect government or the law. If you can't enforce it, don't pass it. Drugs and guns both fit that category. By passing laws against them and not enforcing them, our drug laws are just funding organized crime. You're trying to do the same with guns. And the cost of the gun laws is that law abiding citizens DO follow them, and then they can't defend themselves when the people who don't follow them start shooting. Clearly you are treating the victims in Washington as red herrings to your lame arguments.

Gun lovers seem to think that as nothing can be 100% effective, nothing should be done. that's ridiculous.

Now this is a red herring. Or better yet a strawman. No one thinks that. It's just typical liberal demagoguery because your positions are illogical and can't be defended with reason, so you demonize your opponents and their positions.

 

[Bern80]

Great, lets ban cars too. Oh wait, the TT&L is unconstitutional since it prevents poor people from buying them.

This is how goofy the argument has gotten in the "defense" of life-robbing weapons.

Cars, at least in most states, have to have liability insurance which, at least holds the drivers somewhat financially responsible for their WMDs. Will you agree that there should be the same stipulation for gun owners and their WMDs then--if you're going to hold on to this analogy?

There's nothing goofy about it. Guns are inanimate objects. Cars are inanimate objects. In the case of both if used by a person irresponsibly or malicioulsy they can and are involved in injury and death. The differences are their physical forms. My analogy needs know further defense. Yours does given the similarities between the two objects.

If my car wrecks into your car, I'm required to carry liability insurance that will fix your property.

Shouldn't we do the same thing with weapons--force each one to have liability insurance in case they injure someone?

Afterall, they're the same thing...right?

In the sense that the offending party should take responsibility, yes. Though insurance on firearms is unneccessary since, under the law, one is already going to be punished, in most cases, if they hurt someone with their firearm.

Secondly, your dodging. You conveniently did not quote the second part of what I said which pertains to your actual position; guns need to be eliminated entirely and people who own them should be negatively stigmatized to discourage ownership of firearms. Again, your priorities are horribly misplaced. Cars cause far more injuries and deaths to humans than cars. Yet you seem unwilling to put this same negative stigma on car owners. Why is that? The same policies you advocate could be applied to the automobile, hopefully eliminating the ownership of them eventually and thus eliminating the deaths and injuries they are involved in. Where are your priorities? It seems they are only placed on the ones that don't cause you a personal inconvenience.

 

[kaz]

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.

One is a matter of health and one is a matter of vanity; I would imagine that taxes on heart surgeries would be of more grave concern than taxes on weapons you want to purchase.

As far as a debate in congress, those are arguments that could be made. This discussion is regarding Constitutional Rights though. Which is why I'm saying it doesn't make sense in this discussion. I'm not saying that they wouldn't make sense in any discussion.

It is bizarre though the idea that voting, which is not a Constitutional right, is protected from taxation (aka a poll tax). If you allow someone to vote, you can't charge them for it.

Yet the left, who argue that a free ID is still a tax and is Unconstitutional argues that actual Constitutional rights like gun ownership can be regulated and even punitive taxes applied.

Liberals are authoritarian, they aren't liberal. Which is the only way that makes sense.

 

[rightwinger]

My plan is quite simple

Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not

Okay, this made me chuckle. You and me both.

You know, I'd like to see gun shops being able to do that

In many of our recent massacres, the guy is obviously fruit loops. I'd like to see a gun shop say.....Sorry nutjob, you are not buying a gun from me

Bartenders do it when they refuse a drunk a drink. Why can't gun shops?

 

[Spoonman]

My plan is quite simple

Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not

Okay, this made me chuckle. You and me both.

You know, I'd like to see gun shops being able to do that

In many of our recent massacres, the guy is obviously fruit loops. I'd like to see a gun shop say.....Sorry nutjob, you are not buying a gun from me

Bartenders do it when they refuse a drunk a drink. Why can't gun shops?

gun shops are supposed to rely on the efforts of the "experts" the government tells them to consult before making a sale. they aren't free to make their own interpretations thanks to liberal laws and liberal lawsuits. remember, according to you libs, you can't deny to sell or provide a service to anyone. it's discrimination. the first gay guy who doesn't get his gun will be suing for discrimination.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberal Plan: make the criminals police officers

 

[Immanuel]

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.

As usual, you haven't "got it". The red herring here is the notion proffered by gun lovers that as other things are illegal yet still obtainable, any gun laws will be similarly ineffective, in spite of convictions for the aforementioned crimes.

Gun lovers seem to think that as nothing can be 100% effective, nothing should be done. that's ridiculous.

That is bull shit. The argument has not been that no gun laws are necessary, but rather that additional laws are meaningless AND that you on the left really do not care about stopping gun violence but rather preventing law abiding citizens from owning any guns at all which won't stop gun violence at all and quite possibly will increase violence.

Immie

 

[Brain357]

"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem"

- Joe Rogan

Let's give everyone healthcare and include lots of mental healthcare.

 

[Spoonman]

"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem"

- Joe Rogan

Let's give everyone healthcare and include lots of mental healthcare.

hey, with obamacare we are doing that. so now there is no longer an excuse not to let people have guns

 

[rightwinger]

NRA Doctrine
- No Gun Registrations
- No Owner Registrations
- No Background checks
- No restrictions on guns or magazines


NRA states: Nothing you propose will stop gun violence

 

[Steven_R]

We've implemented all of those things, some at the federal and some at the state and local levels, and yet gun violence still exists. How does adding more laws that already aren't working fix the problem?