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

[Geaux4it]

I just clicked in to see whether Geaux is still running that bogus Putin quote.

Why am I not surprised...

bogus? Maybe. Factual, perhaps.

-Geaux

 

[Noomi]

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.

By your logic, drugs should be legal because you can't stop people from buying them, or selling them.
Murder should also be legal because you can't stop someone from killing, can you?

Ban guns, make them illegal, and turn 90% of Americans into criminals. I like the sound of that.

 

[Pogo]

I just clicked in to see whether Geaux is still running that bogus Putin quote.

Why am I not surprised...

bogus? Maybe. Factual, perhaps.

-Geaux

So you're saying.. "it doesn't matter whether he said it or not... I'd like for him to have said it".

Thanks for that confirmation.

Not even original, dood.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.

And frankly, I respect their candor. I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.

What does it prove then?

I think that what it proves is that if you say that gun ownership is a "right", then even the most mentally ill, no matter how much of a time-bomb he might be, has a legal ability to buy a gun.

But if you say that gun ownership is a privilage, then you really can screen who should have access to weapons and set up a criteria based on need and suitability.

Which would weed out Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Alexis, etc.

A right can have reasonable restrictions placed on it. And the current laws about who can and can not own firearms has been tested in court several times.

It is not reasonable what you propose.

And again for the disingenuous, one is only restricted from owning firearms if adjudged by competent authority to be incompetent. I have never been so judged nor has any of the several shrinks I have had nor therapists ever had cause to report me as a danger to anyone else. When I attempted suicide I was involuntarily committed but that was changed to voluntary when I talked to my shrink, I never went before a judge.

My paranoia is no danger to you or anyone else. I have lived with it my whole life. I am 56 I have owned firearms since I was 18 and been around firearms my whole life. I served almost 16 years in the Marine Corps.

But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.

he has stated he does not respect nor feel the Constitution should be adhered to. Just what he wants should happen.

 

[hazlnut]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tv9BeOkRTc]How Easy Felons Can Buy Guns At Gun Shows - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hazlnut]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zZnvo_x5tA]UNDERCOVER VIDEO SHOWS ILLEGAL SALE AT ARIZONA GUN SHOW - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hazlnut]

Make it a FEDERAL CRIME TO SELL A GUN, A DEADLY WEAPON, TO A STRANGER WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK!!

We'll live with the "Friends and Family" exception, although some of you nutters will exploit it.

BUT PRIVATE SALES MUST HAVE A BACKGROUND CHECK.

 

[Bern80]

[

I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.

But where does THAT stop?

Incidently, you have it wrong. It was in teh Carter years that the courts ruled that you can't incacerate the mentally ill against their will. That's when a whole bunch of "Homeless" people started showing up (and Reagan unfairly got the blame for). Can't function in the real world, no institution would take them if they weren't imminently dangerous.

The flip side to that is where do you draw that line. Two of the "pro-gun" posters on this very thread (I won't embarrass them by pointing them out) have admitted to severe pyschological disorders. One of them has admitted to severe paranoia he takes three drugs to control. The other is Bi-Polar and admits that he doesn't have coverage to get treatment. (And he STILL thinks ObamaCare is an awful idea.) But the two of them insist UP AND DOWN that they should be able to get guns because the Founding Slave Rapists said they should.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the crazy aren't getting the treatment they need. But you know what, that lady who went on the rampage in Washington didn't get anyone killed but herself.

Because cars, unlike guns, aren't designed to kill people.

I realize it is a slippery slope, but it's a hell of a lot more efficient solution to the problem than taking away the guns of law abiding citizens in an attempt to stop people that don't abide the law in the first place.

So what if she didn't? You know as well as I do had she been waving a gun around yet caused no more damage your reaction would be vastly different because you are hung up on objects rather than the real problem; people.

 

[JoeB131]

[

A right can have reasonable restrictions placed on it. And the current laws about who can and can not own firearms has been tested in court several times.

It is not reasonable what you propose.

And again for the disingenuous, one is only restricted from owning firearms if adjudged by competent authority to be incompetent. I have never been so judged nor has any of the several shrinks I have had nor therapists ever had cause to report me as a danger to anyone else. When I attempted suicide I was involuntarily committed but that was changed to voluntary when I talked to my shrink, I never went before a judge.

My paranoia is no danger to you or anyone else. I have lived with it my whole life. I am 56 I have owned firearms since I was 18 and been around firearms my whole life. I served almost 16 years in the Marine Corps.

But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.

he has stated he does not respect nor feel the Constitution should be adhered to. Just what he wants should happen.

How can you have "reasonable" restrictions of a "right"? It's a contradiction.

If yo accept something is a right, it is unrestricted by that definition.

And that crazy is controlled by a medication frankly isn't much of an assurance. I used to work with a guy who was schizophrenic, who had assured our employer that when on his meds, he was fine.

By the time they fired him, he was cursing at the light fixtures and the girls on the plant floor were terrified of him.

But no judge had "adjudicated" him incompetent, so he could have come in one morning with a gun and taken them all out. (The girls, I mean, not the light fixtures.)

 

[Bern80]

[

A right can have reasonable restrictions placed on it. And the current laws about who can and can not own firearms has been tested in court several times.

It is not reasonable what you propose.

And again for the disingenuous, one is only restricted from owning firearms if adjudged by competent authority to be incompetent. I have never been so judged nor has any of the several shrinks I have had nor therapists ever had cause to report me as a danger to anyone else. When I attempted suicide I was involuntarily committed but that was changed to voluntary when I talked to my shrink, I never went before a judge.

My paranoia is no danger to you or anyone else. I have lived with it my whole life. I am 56 I have owned firearms since I was 18 and been around firearms my whole life. I served almost 16 years in the Marine Corps.

But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.

he has stated he does not respect nor feel the Constitution should be adhered to. Just what he wants should happen.

How can you have "reasonable" restrictions of a "right"? It's a contradiction.

If yo accept something is a right, it is unrestricted by that definition.

And that crazy is controlled by a medication frankly isn't much of an assurance. I used to work with a guy who was schizophrenic, who had assured our employer that when on his meds, he was fine.

By the time they fired him, he was cursing at the light fixtures and the girls on the plant floor were terrified of him.

But no judge had "adjudicated" him incompetent, so he could have come in one morning with a gun and taken them all out. (The girls, I mean, not the light fixtures.)

Or we could go with option c. We accept that life has risks and that it not the role of government to legislate all risk out of life. We seem content accepting the risk involved in the existence of other objects, like cars. We have the statistics. We know by their very existence there is a level of danger, injury and loss of life that can and WILL occur. But we also realize that the vast majority of people that operate these devices are not dangerous. That the vast majority of the objects themselves will never be involved in any level of violence or accident and as such it is nonsensical to deprive the vast majority of people of that object for the sake of preventing injury and death from an extremely small minority.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

A right can have reasonable restrictions placed on it. And the current laws about who can and can not own firearms has been tested in court several times.

It is not reasonable what you propose.

And again for the disingenuous, one is only restricted from owning firearms if adjudged by competent authority to be incompetent. I have never been so judged nor has any of the several shrinks I have had nor therapists ever had cause to report me as a danger to anyone else. When I attempted suicide I was involuntarily committed but that was changed to voluntary when I talked to my shrink, I never went before a judge.

My paranoia is no danger to you or anyone else. I have lived with it my whole life. I am 56 I have owned firearms since I was 18 and been around firearms my whole life. I served almost 16 years in the Marine Corps.

But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.

he has stated he does not respect nor feel the Constitution should be adhered to. Just what he wants should happen.

How can you have "reasonable" restrictions of a "right"? It's a contradiction.

If yo accept something is a right, it is unrestricted by that definition.

And that crazy is controlled by a medication frankly isn't much of an assurance. I used to work with a guy who was schizophrenic, who had assured our employer that when on his meds, he was fine.

By the time they fired him, he was cursing at the light fixtures and the girls on the plant floor were terrified of him.

But no judge had "adjudicated" him incompetent, so he could have come in one morning with a gun and taken them all out. (The girls, I mean, not the light fixtures.)

The only thing the meds do is control my desire to kill myself. They have nothing to do with your supposed claim I am a threat to others.

 

[kaz]

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.

By your logic, drugs should be legal because you can't stop people from buying them, or selling them.

True, they should be legal

Murder should also be legal because you can't stop someone from killing, can you?

The standard in the op was that any high school kid can all get drugs, and they get away with it.

Few high school kids can commit murder and get away with it. So no, it's not by "my logic" that murder should be legal. If it's by your logic, make the argument.

Ban guns, make them illegal, and turn 90% of Americans into criminals. I like the sound of that.

I don't know if this is supposed to be serious or sarcastic or what it means. I'm good with sarcasm to enhance the point, but there has to actually be a point.

 

[kaz]

Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.

And frankly, I respect their candor. I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.

What does it prove then?

I think that what it proves is that if you say that gun ownership is a "right", then even the most mentally ill, no matter how much of a time-bomb he might be, has a legal ability to buy a gun.

But if you say that gun ownership is a privilage, then you really can screen who should have access to weapons and set up a criteria based on need and suitability.

Which would weed out Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Alexis, etc.

I have three words for you due pro cess.

Oops, your argument just vanished...

 

[kaz]

A right can have reasonable restrictions placed on it.

How can you have "reasonable" restrictions of a "right"? It's a contradiction.

If yo accept something is a right, it is unrestricted by that definition

On this point, bam, you nailed it!

Though again, rights can be restricted with due process of law. There is nothing wrong with making it illegal for a convicted felon to buy a gun any more than restricting their right to vote.

 

[kaz]

WHich is why I say, the fastest way to end gun violence- make the gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable with their deep pockets for those killed by guns.

They'll start screening out the bad apple really fast after that.

You'd drive them out of business because they have no control over where guns go, it's the distribution network that does that. then just like drugs, overseas dealers would take over. You've over and over repeated that your answer to the question of how you're going to make gun laws work when drug laws don't is you want gun laws to work like drug laws.

So, if you want to do that, you have to explain why it will work. Hence, the question in the op.

 

[kaz]

But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.

Yes, he does. And he says he was in the military, and he thinks the primary purpose of guns is for killing people. Only sick people like him should be armed. And bam, we are safe and free!

 

[JoeB131]

[

Or we could go with option c. We accept that life has risks and that it not the role of government to legislate all risk out of life. We seem content accepting the risk involved in the existence of other objects, like cars. We have the statistics. We know by their very existence there is a level of danger, injury and loss of life that can and WILL occur. But we also realize that the vast majority of people that operate these devices are not dangerous. That the vast majority of the objects themselves will never be involved in any level of violence or accident and as such it is nonsensical to deprive the vast majority of people of that object for the sake of preventing injury and death from an extremely small minority.

Since there is NO benefit to private citizens having guns and lots of benefits from keeping crazy people from having them, you've kind of "statistically" made the point against gun ownership.

Congratulations!

 

[JoeB131]

But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.

Yes, he does. And he says he was in the military, and he thinks the primary purpose of guns is for killing people. Only sick people like him should be armed. And bam, we are safe and free!

Well, no guy, when I had a gun in the military, I was RESPONSIBLE for the soldiers in my squad, and in turn, the Officers above me were responsible for my actions.

Which meant if I started exhibiting paranoid or dangerous tendencies, they had a responsibility to reel me in.

Get it?

 

[JoeB131]

WHich is why I say, the fastest way to end gun violence- make the gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable with their deep pockets for those killed by guns.

They'll start screening out the bad apple really fast after that.

You'd drive them out of business because they have no control over where guns go, it's the distribution network that does that. then just like drugs, overseas dealers would take over. You've over and over repeated that your answer to the question of how you're going to make gun laws work when drug laws don't is you want gun laws to work like drug laws.

So, if you want to do that, you have to explain why it will work. Hence, the question in the op.

But that's the point. They'd have EVERY bit of control over where the guns go.

Credit Card companies spend BILLIONS making sure that they are going to get paid back. they create "credit reports" on every last one of us and monitor our spending habits.

You hit a gun manufacturer with an eight figure settlement, guess what, they are going to tighten down REAL fast on how their product is "distributed".

Just like every other manufacturer.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The only thing the meds do is control my desire to kill myself. They have nothing to do with your supposed claim I am a threat to others.

I don't find that terribly reassuring.