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

[Wry Catcher]

They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.

Am I the only one that thinks disarming a military base is retarded?

They should just hand out daisies

What was your MOS? Oh, I guess your question answers that question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then, again, what you have to do repeal the 2nd amendment, because what you want consitutes infringment of my 2nd amendment rights.

I think it falls short of that. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the guns have to be cheap. Right?

But who knows with our whacky court system. Back when I lived in Texas, someone poisoned a tree in Austin. He got like 20 years. Crimes that happened the same evening against humans were prosecuted with the perps getting much less... sheesh.

If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.

If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?

Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?

Examples?

What jurisdiction is ‘taxing’ firearms to the extent no one can afford to buy one? And what court has ruled ‘taxing’ firearms is un-Constitutional?

And comparing self-defense rights with privacy rights is idiocy, they’re two completely different legal principles governed by two completely different criteria as to what constitutes ‘infringement’ and what does not.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.

Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.

Rights are not up for popular vote, we've been through this before asshole.

Guy, you need to look up, Japanese-Americans, 1942.

Rights are TOTALLY up to popular opinion.

 

[JoeB131]

[
You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?

Well, no, soldiers are allowed to have personally owned weapons in their Quarters.

But the places where people were working- yeah, that was the case before Clinton got there.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.

The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden". Everyone knew they caused cancer.

BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.

Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers. Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.

Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.

If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.

Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.

Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.

I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.

Neither do 94% of the population...

 

[JoeB131]

[

Seriously, when will you ever back your shit up Joe? Most of what you just said is unsubstantiated. Other than your glittering resume, you are a liar, you do a disservice to all men and women in the military with your attitude. This young punk knows more about his world than you do in half the time you've lived. That is absolutely pathetic for someone such as you.

I served AMERICA. Not Exxon. Not IBM. Not Honeywell or GM or any other big corporation that has no more loyalty to this country other than what tax breaks they can get out of it.

[
I'm 25, I've been in and out of three jobs since my 18th birthday, due to the economic collapse, I've suffered bouts of debilitating almost suicidal depressive states as a result. I live in a family rich in military history. Firstly, I had an Uncle who served in the Hell On Wheels battalion during World War II, another who was captured by the Germans. My grandfather was a military contractor in San Antonio, Texas who built various types of military equipment for various branches of the Military, my second grandfather served two tours in Vietnam, I had a great uncle who fought in the Battle of Iwo Jima, my father served in the First Gulf War in Iraq and Kuwait. And one of my brothers just finished a tour in Afghanistan.

So why didn't you enlist? I mean, I'm happy you have so many folks in your family who served, but frankly, what have you done? And since you can't seem to hold down a job anyway, the military might be a good place for you. They'd still take you at 25.

[
It's funny that you would criticize me for living off of others when you advocate people living off the government dole. Surprise Joe! I don't. When I was unfairly fired from my first job in 2006, I didn't apply for unemployment. In 2010, I could have still done so, but I didn't. In 2012 I managed not to either, and I still won't. It serves me no purpose to further indebt my government by being yet another suckling on the government teet.

Without breaking rules and speculating about your family, somehow, I don't think you are out there obediently starving. Someone is taking care of you. It's EXACTLY the oppossite of the Ayn Randian heroism you advocate.

One of the three jobs I have is writing resumes for people. I see the folks who are really trying to get by in a bad economy. It isn't sitting on the computer all day whining about "them welfare people".

Incidently, I think it is absolutely horrible that we have so many people living off the dole right now. But that's the world the big corporations you worship want. They had full employment under Clinton and they hated it.

If you think paying someone 15 bucks an hour for flipping a burger is a "fair wage" those 51 years of life have failed to teach you anything meaningful. Heck, I was happy to earn $5.15 an hour. It was fair for the job I did.

Then why not 2.00 an hour. Why not just work for whatever they weren't going to throw in the garbage?

However, you never really did answer my argument did you? All you did was rail against rich people, call me a punk, you still never connected the dots between how rich people make other people poor and oh wait, you still never made your case for total gun control.

Um, actually, I did. Many times. Most of you don't need guns.

You're the one who needs to quit running his mouth. You are naive and foolish. You have no insight into this world whatsoever. If you think you've been through hell, guess again.

Guy, both of my parents died when I was 19. That's Hell. Everything else has been a challenge, but challenges are meant to be overcome.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]:

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, totally trashed your hiney, I'm surprised you had the nerve to show your face.

Maybe you need to get back to your video game. Reality is much too scary for you.

 

[Chris]

If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.

So gun owners are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.

What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.

You morons are applying reason the greedy.

I mean, shit, the whole fucking planet is dying because they don't want to do anything about Global Warming that might cut into their profits.

They figure someone else will print money to take care of the poor or they'll issue food stamps, or whatever else happens, as long as they get more of the wealth.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden". Everyone knew they caused cancer.

BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.

Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers. Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.

Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.

If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.

Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.

Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.

I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.

Neither do 94% of the population...

Criminals aren't referred to as "crazy."

 

[JoeB131]

Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.

I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.

Neither do 94% of the population...

Criminals aren't referred to as "crazy."

No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.

 

[martybegan]

If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.

So gun owners are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool.

Same tired studies being used by the same (actually different) tired troll.

Go suck JoeDouches balls.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.

Neither do 94% of the population...

Criminals aren't referred to as "crazy."

No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.

Like we have a choice.

 

[JoeNormal]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Considering the number of guns in this country, I think the genie is already out of the bottle. Instead of trying to control them, why don't we go with the flow. Let's encourage would be shooters to go to Wall Street or K Street instead of the local theater or schoolyard.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The ONLY way to PREVENT CRIMINALS from having guns would be for the National Guard to go door-to-door Baghdad-style. That would work somewhat for a short while, although thousands of the guns would be well hidden.

Crooks are going to be enraged, not having guns, and undoubtedly, they will dramatically increase ties with organized crime, gangs and foreign cartels. The mob will explode in size.

Unless, you want a all-pervasive police state. That'll work.

 

[candycorn]

The ONLY way to PREVENT CRIMINALS from having guns would be for the National Guard to go door-to-door Baghdad-style. That would work somewhat for a short while, although thousands of the guns would be well hidden.

Crooks are going to be enraged, not having guns, and undoubtedly, they will dramatically increase ties with organized crime, gangs and foreign cartels. The mob will explode in size.

Unless, you want a all-pervasive police state. That'll work.

I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum. No parole, no time off; you're gone.

 

[Ernie S.]

I said "I suppose" you ..., not that you personally do.

The rest of your post expresses merit for some form of gun control, but in context it is a non sequitur. All gun violence which kills or maims an innocent person is an act of evil, be the victim the single casualty or not; be the victim an adult or a child. However, the killing of 20 six year olds in their classroom stands out as unique and noteworthy on the field of carnage.

Why? What makes those 20 kids more special than the 40 adults that were killed the next day in the US?

The death of 20 6 year olds tugs at the heart strings, but how exactly does that make them ammunition for liberal agenda while the 40 shop keepers, mothers, fathers, police officers and drug dealers that also died that day, are largely overlooked?

That you don't know ... frankly I don't know how to respond. I'd walk through hell to save those children; I'd take a tactical response to the other situation.

Bullshit! You'd walk on their bodies to achieve your agenda.

How many homicides in the US in 2012? And for you, it's all about 20 kids?

That's fucked up.

 

[Ernie S.]

I think it falls short of that. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the guns have to be cheap. Right?

But who knows with our whacky court system. Back when I lived in Texas, someone poisoned a tree in Austin. He got like 20 years. Crimes that happened the same evening against humans were prosecuted with the perps getting much less... sheesh.

If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.

If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?

Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?

Examples?

What jurisdiction is ‘taxing’ firearms to the extent no one can afford to buy one? And what court has ruled ‘taxing’ firearms is un-Constitutional?

And comparing self-defense rights with privacy rights is idiocy, they’re two completely different legal principles governed by two completely different criteria as to what constitutes ‘infringement’ and what does not.

Show me where in the Constitution it says your right to privacy "shall not be infringed".

 

[Ernie S.]

The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden". Everyone knew they caused cancer.

BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.

Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers. Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.

Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.

If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.

Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.

Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.

I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.

Neither do 94% of the population...

94%???? Where did you come up with that #? From rdweeb's ass?