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

[kaz]

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

Once again, you evade and deflect. They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?

 

[Sarah G]

I believe your version of history is very convenient. Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.

Strawman. What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns? How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

Maybe you should do some research. Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence. So, gun control helps.

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

BOB SCHIEFFER:“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?”

FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”

— exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014

The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.

The Facts:

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

I care more about what Hillary thinks than Rick Santorum. He's a dumb blonde. I didn't even read it, I'll stipulate to his idiocy. Has nothing to do with me though.

As for that gun laws help in cities, are you completely freaking insane? That's where most shootings happen

I was just correcting your view on history in the wild West. Try and keep up.

WTF? I didn't say anything about the "wild west." Stop making shit up

You don't seem to understand what you are responding to.

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan? | Page 626 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Once again, you evade and deflect. They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?

Not you, you're a lunatic. But those who have a need, of course. But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.

Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?

You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:

Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's

http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf

 

[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.

Back to the wild, wild, West!

the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....

please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...

I believe your version of history is very convenient. Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.

Strawman. What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns? How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

Maybe you should do some research. Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence. So, gun control helps.

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

BOB SCHIEFFER:“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?”

FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”

— exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014

The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.

The Facts:

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

Wrong….the gun control rules in Wyatt Earps town only worked when the criminals wanted to obey the law….remember, his brother was shot and crippled by a gunman who didn't follow the rules……..

Please….try to do some research…..the Wild West wasn't wild because people carried guns and attacking others was made harder by that…..

Gun control only works on people who want to follow the law…France proved that….they have all the gun laws you guys want…and more…they ban everything except for a few hunting shotguns for rich sportsmen…..and none of it stopped the slaughter….

 

[2aguy]

Once again, you evade and deflect. They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?

Not you, you're a lunatic. But those who have a need, of course. But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.

Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?

You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:

Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's

http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf

again….a license is useless and pointless and simply creates a criminal out of a normal gun owner who fails to file the right paperwork…..

 

[2aguy]

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

Once again, you evade and deflect. They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

This is why gun licensing is stupid, useless and a waste of time…..do you think the terrorists in France got a license for their illegal, fully automatic rifles and grenades?

Several clerical error cases are discussed in this article besides what is highlighted.


Glenn Reynolds: How gun laws put the innocent on trial

ottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.)

Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.

If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies.Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something.

Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.

 

[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.

Back to the wild, wild, West!

the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....

please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...

I believe your version of history is very convenient. Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.

Strawman. What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns? How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

Maybe you should do some research. Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence. So, gun control helps.

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

BOB SCHIEFFER:“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?”

FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”

— exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014

The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.

The Facts:

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

Yeah…try to do some research……Tombstone had gun crime when the criminals decided to do gun crime….their gun laws only worked on those who wanted to obey them…….more stupidity from anti gunners……..

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law the anti gun extremists always point to…

Relevant law in Tombstone[edit]
To reduce crime in Tombstone, on April 19, 1881, the Tombstone's city council passed ordinance #9 requiring anyone carrying a bowie knife, dirk, pistol or rifle[31][32] to deposit their weapons at a livery or saloon soon after entering town. The ordinance was the legal basis for City Marshal Virgil Earp's decision to confront the Cowboys that resulted in the shoot out.[33]


And how well did that law actually work…..

Doc didn't follow the law…

Cowboys accuse Holliday of robbery[edit]
Milt Joyce, a county supervisor and owner of the Oriental Saloon, had a contentious relationship with Doc Holliday. In October 1880, Holliday had trouble with a gambler named Johnny Tyler in Milt Joyce's Oriental Saloon. Tyler had been hired by a competing gambling establishment to drive customers from the Oriental Saloon.[26] Holliday challenged Tyler to a fight, but Tyler ran. Joyce did not like Holliday or the Earps and he continued to argue with Holliday.

Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver.

Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe. Joyce then hit Holliday over the head with his revolver.[71] Holliday was arrested and pleaded guilty to assault and battery.[72]

Yeah…..those gun control laws really worked…..

ANd more gun control that failed…..

Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town.

By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.
He told others he was looking for Holliday or an Earp.


At about 1:00 pm, Virgil and Morgan Earp surprised Ike on 4th Street where Virgil pistol-whipped him from behind. Disarming him, the Earps took Ike to appear before Judge Wallace for violating the ordinance. Wyatt waited with Clanton while Virgil went to find Judge Wallace so the court hearing could be held.[37]

Tom McLaury's concealed weapon[edit

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose.

Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town.

When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw a revolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants


.[77] As an unpaid deputy marshal for Virgil, Wyatt habitually carried a pistol in his waistband, as was the custom of that time. Witnesses reported that Wyatt drew his revolver from his coat pocket and pistol whipped Tom McLaury with it twice, leaving him prostrate and bleeding on the street. Saloon-keeper Andrew Mehan testified at the Spicer hearing afterward that he saw McLaury deposit a revolver at the Capital Saloon sometime between 1-2:00 pm, after the confrontation with Wyatt, which Mehan also witnessed.[7]

-------------

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.


By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190


Do you see why you shouldn't listen to gun grabbers or take hollywood as your source for history….?

And more violations that led to the famous shoot out…that's right…remember the famous shoot out in Tombstone…the town that banned guns…..?


Virgil testified later that Behan told them, "For God's sake, don't go down there or they will murder you!"[79] Wyatt said Behan told him and Morgan, "I have disarmed them."[37]Behan testified afterward that he'd only said he'd gone down to the Cowboys "for the purpose of disarming them," not that he'd actually disarmed them.[

--------------------

When Virgil saw the Cowboys, he testified he said he immediately commanded the Cowboys to "Throw up your hands, I want your guns!"[79] Wyatt said Virgil told the Cowboys, "Throw up your hands; I have come to disarm you!"[37]

Virgil and Wyatt both testified they saw Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton draw and cock their six-shooters.[79] Virgil yelled: "Hold! I don't mean that!"[75]:172–173 or "Hold on, I don't want that!"[79] The single-action revolverscarried by both groups had to be cocked before firing.

Jeff Morey, who served as the historical consultant on the film Tombstone, compared testimony by partisan and neutral witnesses and came to the conclusion that the Earps described the situation accurately.[90][92]

Who started shooting first is not certain; accounts by both participants and eyewitnesses are contradictory.[93] The smoke from the black powder used in the weapons added to the confusion of the gunfight in the narrow space.[80]Those loyal to one side or the other told conflicting stories, and independent eyewitnesses who did not know the participants by sight were unable to say for certain who shot first.

Yeah….that gun control worked in Tombstone…right?

Billy Clanton

Both Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton were armed with Colt Frontier 1873 revolvers which were identified by their serial numbers at the Spicer hearing. C.S. Fly found Billy Clanton's empty revolver in his hand where he lay and took it from him.[90]

Frank McLaury
Frank McLaury's revolver was recovered by laundryman B. E. Fellehy on the street a few feet from his body with two rounds remaining in it. Fellehy placed it next to Frank's body before he was moved to the Harwood house. Dr. Mathews laid Frank's revolver on the floor while he examined Billy and Tom. Cowboy witness Wes Fuller said he saw Frank in the middle of the street shooting a revolver, and trying to remove a Winchester rifle from the scabbard on his horse. The two Model 1873 rifles were still in the scabbards on Frank and Tom's horses when they were found after the gunfight.[7] If, as was customary, Frank carried only five rounds, then he fired only three shots.[54]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Back to the wild, wild, West!

the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....

please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...

I believe your version of history is very convenient. Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.

Strawman. What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns? How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

Maybe you should do some research. Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence. So, gun control helps.

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

BOB SCHIEFFER:“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?”

FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”

— exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014

The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.

The Facts:

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

Wrong….the gun control rules in Wyatt Earps town only worked when the criminals wanted to obey the law….remember, his brother was shot and crippled by a gunman who didn't follow the rules……..

Please….try to do some research…..the Wild West wasn't wild because people carried guns and attacking others was made harder by that…..

Gun control only works on people who want to follow the law…France proved that….they have all the gun laws you guys want…and more…they ban everything except for a few hunting shotguns for rich sportsmen…..and none of it stopped the slaughter….

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?

Not you, you're a lunatic. But those who have a need, of course. But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.

Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?

You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:

Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's

http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf

again….a license is useless and pointless and simply creates a criminal out of a normal gun owner who fails to file the right paperwork…..

Does a license make a criminal out of everyone who drives a motor vehicle? Does it make a criminal out of every doctor or dentist who practices his or her craft?

It is a waste of time to offer any more of a rebuttal than this ^^^; as you will continue to post banal comments repetitively,

 

[Conservative65]

Once again, you evade and deflect. They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?

Not you, you're a lunatic. But those who have a need, of course. But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.

Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?

You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:

Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's

http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf

You pretend that every person that wants to carry does so because they're scared and/or paranoid.


Read up on the 2nd amendment.

I've asked a similar question before based on your views of gun control laws. What type of license would the person that stole the gun from my locked vehicle go and get in order to have that gun?

 

[kaz]

Strawman. What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns? How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

Maybe you should do some research. Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence. So, gun control helps.

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

BOB SCHIEFFER:“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?”

FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”

— exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014

The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.

The Facts:

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

I care more about what Hillary thinks than Rick Santorum. He's a dumb blonde. I didn't even read it, I'll stipulate to his idiocy. Has nothing to do with me though.

As for that gun laws help in cities, are you completely freaking insane? That's where most shootings happen

I was just correcting your view on history in the wild West. Try and keep up.

WTF? I didn't say anything about the "wild west." Stop making shit up

You don't seem to understand what you are responding to.

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan? | Page 626 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And? I didn't talk about the wild west in that post, I talked about you being a lemming

 

[kaz]

Once again, you evade and deflect. They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?

Not you, you're a lunatic. But those who have a need, of course. But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.

Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?

You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:

Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's

http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf

Once again you answer a straight question with subterfuge and then don't get why no one knows what you are arguing

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Once again, you evade and deflect. They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?
I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?

Not you, you're a lunatic. But those who have a need, of course. But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.

Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?

You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:

Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's

http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf

You pretend that every person that wants to carry does so because they're scared and/or paranoid.


Read up on the 2nd amendment.

I've asked a similar question before based on your views of gun control laws. What type of license would the person that stole the gun from my locked vehicle go and get in order to have that gun?

Criminals won't need a license to steal, so your question is silly.

I don't pretend EVERY person that wants to carry a gun is paranoid or scared, some are and some are the ones most likely to whine about any effort to control the proliferation of guns in America.

To go a bit further, it is my opinion that a gun owner who does not properly secure a gun which is then stolen is culpable when the gun has been used to harm or kill another.

Not necessarily criminally culpable, but civilly so. A gun in a locked glove compartment in a locked car is not IMO sufficiently secured.

 

[Lakhota]

Which is worse - everyone screaming at a crowded concert or everyone shooting at a crowded concert? Shooting into those terrorist suicide vests packed full of explosives would be exciting.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Once again, you evade and deflect. They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?

That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms. Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me. But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?
I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here.

I'm surprised. Liberals create in some cognitive dissonance, that you have never been known to cogitate, it's unlikely you would ever be aware enough to be affected by anything thoughtful.

 

[Ernie S.]

So no relevant response? Just as I thought.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So no relevant response? Just as I thought.

Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".

Your post: "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"

and,

"I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"

Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.

 

[Conservative65]

So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims? Um ... dude ... that's sick

Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?

And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?

Not you, you're a lunatic. But those who have a need, of course. But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.

Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?

You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:

Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's

http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf

You pretend that every person that wants to carry does so because they're scared and/or paranoid.


Read up on the 2nd amendment.

I've asked a similar question before based on your views of gun control laws. What type of license would the person that stole the gun from my locked vehicle go and get in order to have that gun?

Criminals won't need a license to steal, so your question is silly.

I didn't say they needed a license to steal. I said what license do they have for possessing the gun. That's what you don't get.

I don't pretend EVERY person that wants to carry a gun is paranoid or scared, some are and some are the ones most likely to whine about any effort to control the proliferation of guns in America.

To go a bit further, it is my opinion that a gun owner who does not properly secure a gun which is then stolen is culpable when the gun has been used to harm or kill another.

Not necessarily criminally culpable, but civilly so. A gun in a locked glove compartment in a locked car is not IMO sufficiently secured.

The key word is LOCKED in a place for which the criminal shouldn't go and to you that's not enough. Your opinion, much like your existence, amounts to the level of shit in a n*gger's back yard. If my gun is in my locked vehicle on my private property, a place a criminal shouldn't go, it's secured. Don't like it, tough shit.

Again, what you support being applied to those of us who legally own guns does not apply to the criminals. So sad.

 

[Conservative65]

So no relevant response? Just as I thought.

Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".

Your post: "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"

and,

"I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"

Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.

You much like you "feel" that a gun in a locked car on private property isn't secured?

You're not worthy of the air you breathe.

 

[2aguy]

There is an actual solution to gun crime. When someone breaks the law with a gun, lock them up for a long time. It is really just that simple. Also, it actually targets criminals. Gun grabbing extremists focus all of their efforts in making felony traps out of clerical errors for normal people who want to own guns…..and if they fail to get the right paperwork….the gun grabbers want to destroy their lives…..

Criminals…not so much…..