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

[2aguy]

Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill? Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh

The laws we already have could be better enforced like background checks and a waiting period even and especially for gun shows. Tougher sentencing for criminals who commit crimes with unregistered weapons if they can't confirm where they got the weapon.

Tougher regulation will go a long way in making sure the guns are registered and only used for what they say it will be used for.

These people here think everyone should just trust them as far as gun ownership, no question. I trust these particular gun owners as far as I can throw them and I'm a weak little thing despite that tractor tire tip pic I posted a couple of months ago.

They don't have background checks in France except for hunting shotguns...because all pistols are illegal for all citizens, hence no background checks are needed......they don't need and assault weapon ban...because all rifles are completely banned for normal citizens....there is no reason to register guns...because they are all illegal except for a few hunting shotguns.......

They don't need waiting periods...because you can't legally own pistols or rifles or fully automatic rifles...and for the few hunting shotguns allowed...they have a long, long process of background checks and waiting periods in France...already....

All of the laws you mention....are already exceeded in France, and the rest of Europe....and they easily get guns


So....please explain how criminals in France and the rest of Europe and terrorists still got guns after they followed your advice and already implemented all of the gun control you just advocated in your post........

 

[2aguy]

Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.

See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.

Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public

Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.

Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.

Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."

Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?

Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."

Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.

Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......

 

[2aguy]

Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.

See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.

Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public

Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.

Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.

Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."

Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?

Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."

Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.

No...we spend time defending the right to self defense...you guys focus on the gun...often in a sexual way......we defend the right...you talk about masturbating with guns....

See the difference?

 

[kaz]

Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill? Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh

The laws we already have could be better enforced like background checks and a waiting period even and especially for gun shows. Tougher sentencing for criminals who commit crimes with unregistered weapons if they can't confirm where they got the weapon.

Tougher regulation will go a long way in making sure the guns are registered and only used for what they say it will be used for.

These people here think everyone should just trust them as far as gun ownership, no question. I trust these particular gun owners as far as I can throw them and I'm a weak little thing despite that tractor tire tip pic I posted a couple of months ago.

France has all that and more. Care to test your theory on the streets of Paris? Didn't work, Holmes. before you do, provide us with next of kin so we can notify them for you

 

[kaz]

Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.

See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.

Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public

Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.

Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.

Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."

Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?

Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."

Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.

Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......

Wry has two girlfriends, their names are Smith & Wesson...

 

[2aguy]

Straw, man. No one makes this argument.

In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Your wrong. Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.

AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.

SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language

M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.

You refuse to accept settled law.
Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left. Then it becomes absolute

Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed? Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade. As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?

He sided with increasing the government control over the people in direct violation of the Constitution....he made up law to justify his decision....that is not the role of a judge in our Constitutional government. And he did it twice to get obama care through the process.

 

[2aguy]

To keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, a simple bill should be drawn up and debated... then inevitably passed and signed into law by the President, which simply forbids anyone with any discernible kinship with the Ideological Left to possess a firearm; wherein, it is deemed legal to summarily execute anyone of such a nature who is found to be in possession of such, or who is reasonably known to have recently BEEN in possession of such. This would include... all teachers, professors, all homosexuals, the gender confused, government employees except the Military... which would of course need to exclude all sexual deviants and Democrats in general... all members of the media, all citizens of any Liberal, Progressive, Socialist Enterprise of kind ... City, State, what have you. I.e.: The Democrat Party, MA, MI, VT... Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, NYC, California, Oregon, Washington, Washington DC... New Mexico, Chicago, Pennsylvania, etc... .

Sure... it will be a blood bath for a few years. But... once the Leftists or products of left-think are eradicated... the rest will simply work itself out.

It's not like its not going to come to a blood bath inevitably, anyway.

Or registered democrats...most of the gun murder occur in voting districts that voted for obama.......

 

[kaz]

Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.

See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.

Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public

Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.

Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.

Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."

Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?

Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."

Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.

No...we spend time defending the right to self defense...you guys focus on the gun...often in a sexual way......we defend the right...you talk about masturbating with guns....

See the difference?

He's too busy shoving the barrel of the gun up his gay ass right now to grasp it

 

[Wry Catcher]

Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.

See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.

Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public

Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.

Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.

Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."

Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?

Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."

Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.

Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......

You Lie! (you have never proved your ability to actually think).

 

[kaz]

See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.

Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.

Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."

Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?

Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."

Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.

Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......

You Lie! (you have never proved your ability to actually think).

From the guy who can't answer a single question.

Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?

why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?

Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?

And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?

 

[2aguy]

Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.

Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."

Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?

Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."

Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.

Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......

You Lie! (you have never proved your ability to actually think).

From the guy who can't answer a single question.

Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?

why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?

Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?

And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?

facts, the truth, reality.......they are not the friends of left wing anti gun extremists....French gun control shows that not one of their ideas to stop gun violence actually works on actual criminals.......

It does work like a charm on people who won't use guns to murder people though.....criminals and terrorists...not so much.

 

[Lakhota]

Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home. Everyone! Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun. Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark. It just gives me goosebumps. God bless the gun nutters.

 

[kaz]

Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home. Everyone! Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun. Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark. It just gives me goosebumps. God bless the gun nutters.

Again the black and white Democrat party. Our choices are to prevent everyone from being armed or arm everyone by force. that's all you grasp. Oh, and you're smarter than Republicans, you aren't all black and white like they are...

Nice post, retard

 

[2aguy]

Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home. Everyone! Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun. Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark. It just gives me goosebumps. God bless the gun nutters.

What is it with you guys and forcing people to do things......we don't want to force people to carry or own guns.....we want the government to follow the 2nd Amendment and our God given right......not force us to own or carry guns.....

You guys need a lot of work...

How about enough people owning guns in France to stop the mass shooters...that would work for us....

 

[Lakhota]

Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home. Everyone! Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun. Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark. It just gives me goosebumps. God bless the gun nutters.

Again the black and white Democrat party. Our choices are to prevent everyone from being armed or arm everyone by force. that's all you grasp. Oh, and you're smarter than Republicans, you aren't all black and white like they are...

Nice post, retard

Thank you! That's my plan! You asked for one!

 

[kaz]

Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home. Everyone! Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun. Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark. It just gives me goosebumps. God bless the gun nutters.

Again the black and white Democrat party. Our choices are to prevent everyone from being armed or arm everyone by force. that's all you grasp. Oh, and you're smarter than Republicans, you aren't all black and white like they are...

Nice post, retard

Thank you! That's my plan! You asked for one!

And it was all you are capable of, so thank you for your normal contribution to a conversation

 

[Lakhota]

Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home. Everyone! Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun. Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark. It just gives me goosebumps. God bless the gun nutters.

What is it with you guys and forcing people to do things......we don't want to force people to carry or own guns.....we want the government to follow the 2nd Amendment and our God given right......not force us to own or carry guns.....

You guys need a lot of work...

How about enough people owning guns in France to stop the mass shooters...that would work for us....

Funny. I remember a veteran/student in a recent Oregon shootout who stated on live TV that he was afraid to use his concealed carry for fear of being mistaken as the shooter by the cops. How does one deal with that? Imagine hundreds of armed Parisians in a similar situation - in the dark of night...

 

[kaz]

Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home. Everyone! Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun. Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark. It just gives me goosebumps. God bless the gun nutters.

What is it with you guys and forcing people to do things......we don't want to force people to carry or own guns.....we want the government to follow the 2nd Amendment and our God given right......not force us to own or carry guns.....

You guys need a lot of work...

How about enough people owning guns in France to stop the mass shooters...that would work for us....

Funny. I remember a veteran/student in a recent Oregon shootout who stated on live TV that he was afraid to use his concealed carry for fear of being mistaken as the shooter by the cops. How does one deal with that?

wow, what a great point. First someone is shooting as many people as they can, and suddenly it may turn into a bad situation. That's quite an observation

 

[Wry Catcher]

See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.

Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.

Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."

Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?

Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."

Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.

No...we spend time defending the right to self defense...you guys focus on the gun...often in a sexual way......we defend the right...you talk about masturbating with guns....

See the difference?

He's too busy shoving the barrel of the gun up his gay ass right now to grasp it

Idiot-Gram ^^^

Does advertising that you're homophobic have anything to do with your pathological defense of guns?

I wonder if you were not molested as a child/teen, enjoyed the experience and hate yourself for doing so. Thus you feel the need to express your manhood, but actually covet guns out of fear of the monster who molested you.

The same thought occurs to me about 2aguy and M14; there is something incredibly wrong in your makeup and theirs, an emotional obsession that is manifest in defending guns.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny.

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.

Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."

Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?

Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."

Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.

Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......

You Lie! (you have never proved your ability to actually think).

From the guy who can't answer a single question.

Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?

why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?

Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?

And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?

This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.

35. Fallacy of Many Questions | | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast