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

[2aguy]

Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children. They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.

But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.

.

But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...

jesus you are off the deep end.

We have background checks already....and they don't work. Universal background checks won't work either.

My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....

(Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)

I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....

So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?

I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....


Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........

If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?

Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?

You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.

There is no federal law against felons voting. There is against felons buying guns.

Felons cannot vote. So we therefore, according to your reasoning, must insist that all voters get a federal background check before they vote......right?

 

[2aguy]

Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children. They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.

But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.

.

But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...

jesus you are off the deep end.

We have background checks already....and they don't work. Universal background checks won't work either.

My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....

(Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)

I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....

So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?

I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....


Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........

If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?

Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?

You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.

There is no federal law against felons voting. There is against felons buying guns.

And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.

 

[2aguy]

Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children. They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.

But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.

.

But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...

jesus you are off the deep end.

We have background checks already....and they don't work. Universal background checks won't work either.

My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....

(Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)

I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....

So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?

I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....


Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........

If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?

Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?

You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.

There is no federal law against felons voting. There is against felons buying guns.

Guy...they currently have universal background checks in Washington state..and they are already failing....

Background Checks Powerless Again: Father of Gunman Faces Charges for Falsifying Purchase Forms - Breitbart

On September 29, Raymond Fryberg–father of Marysville-Pilchuck High School gunman Jaylen Fryberg–was found guilty of six firearm-related charges, including falsifying answers on federal forms for the purchase of a Beretta Px4 Storm handgun.

It was the Beretta handgun that 15-year-old Jaylen used to kill four students and wound another on October 24, 2014. He then took his own life.

According to Reuters, Raymond Fryberg was prohibited from buying or possessing a gun due to “a non-expiring domestic violence restraining order in 2002 after he was accused of assaulting and threatening his girlfriend.” Yet Fryberg purchased the Beretta and four other guns in 2013.

He passed a background check for the Beretta, something which prosecutors say he did by “[lying] on federal forms.” KOMO News reported that Fryberg was arrested on March 31 on charges that he “illegally purchased the firearm used in the mass shooting.”

Having been found guilty, Fryberg is scheduled to be sentenced on January 11.

It should be noted that Washington state’s new universal background check law passed by a small margin on November 4–just under two weeks after the Marysville shooting–with pledges that more background checks would reduce gun crime. However, Fryberg’s example proves again that background checks are impotent against determined criminals or those who are determined to get their hands on a gun at all costs.

Sooooo…he lied on his background check form…..a Universal Background check state….and he got the gun…and then his kid got the gun and killed people…..
So….the guy could not legally buy the gun under existing laws, and should not have been able to guy the gun due to both types of background check regimes, the old one…and now the Universal one……
Did background checks stop this guy from getting a gun…no.
Did background checks stop this guys son from killing people…no.
Since this guy could not legally own the gun in the first place…would licensing all gun owners have stopped him in any way….no.
Since this guy could not legally own the gun in the first place….would registering all guns have stopped this shooting….no.
In fact, a Supreme Court decision made it un Constitutional to force criminals from registering their illegal guns due to the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination……
So a failure of anti gun extremism on all fronts...

 

[NYcarbineer]

But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...

jesus you are off the deep end.

We have background checks already....and they don't work. Universal background checks won't work either.

My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....

(Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)

I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....

So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?

I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....


Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........

If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?

Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?

You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.

There is no federal law against felons voting. There is against felons buying guns.

And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.

Learn to read. To vote you have to register. That is your background check. There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.

 

[2aguy]

We have background checks already....and they don't work. Universal background checks won't work either.

My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....

(Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)

I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....

So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?

I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....


Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........

If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?

Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?

You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.

There is no federal law against felons voting. There is against felons buying guns.

And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.

Learn to read. To vote you have to register. That is your background check. There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.

Are you feeling well.......have you ever voted......registering to vote is not a background check....you need to have a law that requires that you get a background check before you walk into the polling place...before you vote...to make sure you aren't a convicted felon......that is how you reason..right?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.

Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..

How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….

And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..

No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.

Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?

I mean, children still get molested. What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?

Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?

Here's the obvious difference that a high school debater would recognize.

Your argument is a false analogy. Our argument is not that we should not have gun laws because criminals don't follow them, it's that they don't follow them and their victims do because we aren't criminals which harms us. That isn't applicable to any of your other analogies. You are harming victims.

I mean Jesus fucking Christ, that is so blatantly obvious. How can a supposed adult not recognize that ridiculous fallacy when you say it?

Your argument might have merit but for the obvious fact a criminal is not easily identified, and a criminal act can and many times occurs in the heat of the moment by those who have no such record.

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea which you and the other three who seem to have a gun fetish***can't rebut, and always fall back to the same opinion; the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and more guns equal less violence. Both are untrue.

 

[kaz]

Your argument might have merit but for the obvious fact a criminal is not easily identified, and a criminal act can and many times occurs in the heat of the moment by those who have no such record.

Not sure what your point is

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed

For the most part. You do not have the right to be armed on someone else's private property against their consent. You also do not have the right to be armed inside government property. For example, court, military bases and other actual government property. Note that is not public property, where you do have a right to be armed. But going into an area that is actually for the purpose of running government you don't.

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea which you and the other three who seem to have a gun fetish***

You're the one equating guns with sex, the fetish is yours

can't rebut, and always fall back to the same opinion; the Second Amendment is sacrosanct

No one said guns are "sacrosanct" but you and I have no idea what you are talking about. They are like any other Constitutional right, they can be removed with due process of law. Everyone arguing my side has said the same thing. You have a fetish about the sacrosanct thing

and more guns equal less violence. Both are untrue.

No one said that, we said the right to defend yourself

 

[2aguy]

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

Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.

Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..

How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….

And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..

No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.

Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?

I mean, children still get molested. What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?

Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?

Here's the obvious difference that a high school debater would recognize.

Your argument is a false analogy. Our argument is not that we should not have gun laws because criminals don't follow them, it's that they don't follow them and their victims do because we aren't criminals which harms us. That isn't applicable to any of your other analogies. You are harming victims.

I mean Jesus fucking Christ, that is so blatantly obvious. How can a supposed adult not recognize that ridiculous fallacy when you say it?

Your argument might have merit but for the obvious fact a criminal is not easily identified, and a criminal act can and many times occurs in the heat of the moment by those who have no such record.

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea which you and the other three who seem to have a gun fetish***can't rebut, and always fall back to the same opinion; the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and more guns equal less violence. Both are untrue.

No...violent criminals should have a tattoo on their arm, on the shoulder. That way they can easily be identified as not being allowed to own a gun. No unviversal background check will ever be needed then. A private seller can just ask to see the shoulder of the gun buyer...if it has the tattoo, then he won't sell the gun. Simple, immediate and addresses every problem you guys want to solve through gun laws...right?

And yes...if you are not a criminal you have a right to own and carry a gun for self defense.

And guns do lower the crime rate...study after study shows this.

I would possibly support private businesses being able to ban guns...but that increases gun stealing when cars are broken into...and it is also a violation of our civil rights.

Courts...you can check your gun at the door....but criminals still get guns into court rooms. I am not rigid on these matters after all.....

 

[2aguy]

We have background checks already....and they don't work. Universal background checks won't work either.

My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....

(Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)

I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....

So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?

I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....


Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........

If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?

Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?

You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.

There is no federal law against felons voting. There is against felons buying guns.

And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.

Learn to read. To vote you have to register. That is your background check. There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.

You understand that you can register to vote when you get your drivers license..that is not a background check in any way shape or form......

According to you we need a federally mandated criminal background check to keep felons from voting....since that is how you reason..right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

 

[kaz]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.

An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.

 

[kaz]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are

From the guy who keeps insisting we think gun rights are absolute when every one of us keeps telling you gun rights can be limited with the same rules as any other right, through due process. No matter how many times every one of us tells you you're wrong about what we think, you keep repeating that's what we think. Now that's fatuous

An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested

Yes, and your ideas have been tested and failed. Ours have been tested and worked. So let's go with our ideas

a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.

So ... why do you bother posting your views on message boards if you think only the SCOTUS matters? I think it's sad you allow them to think for you. Then again, it's either that or Obama thinking for you. Or Harry Reid. Or Nancy Pelosi.

The only one who tells me what to think is me. But I'm not an intellectual zombie and have no interest in being one

 

[kaz]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.

An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.

Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"

 

[danielpalos]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.

An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.

Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"

yes, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.

An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.

Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"

In so many words, no. Yet one can make that inference from comments posted by M14 Shooter, 2aguy and several others who use the Second Amendment's language as a rebuttal to gun control.

 

[danielpalos]

better aqueducts and better roads, that is my solution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In so many words, no. Yet one can make that inference from comments posted by M14 Shooter, 2aguy and several others who use the Second Amendment's language as a rebuttal to gun control.

This, is of course, another lie.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question: What qualifies as an "infringement" of the right to arms? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Note the lack of response from the people who are so happy to note that the rights protected by the 2nd are not absolute -- you, specifically.

But then, anti-gun loons such as yourself avoid topics like these because you understand it is impossible for you to stand and deliver a sound argument in support of your position.

You may now proceed to prove me correct - again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

My points are consistent, Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They than fall back to equivocate the Second Amendment and declare, yes but that's not what the original intent was, the framers meant to say mentally disturbed people ought to have their RIGHT to bear arms infringed, and so should felons and so should former slaves (post emancipation, but still relevant).

BUT the Framers did not.

 

[kaz]

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?

I don't. I've posted my argument ad nausea....

... and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.

I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...

The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.

An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.

Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"

yes, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I flew over Canada just a few hours ago on my way back to Europe, it's a big country