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

[kaz]

Grandfathering everyone's LEGAL guns would have to do. But eventually, they'll either all stop working, or real gun enthusiasts will take care of them so that they work for generations. But all the crooks... the gun will jam and they'll toss it.
I'd also make it a lot harder to buy bullets. It seems like buying bullets is no problem. That's not good.

Buying pot is no problem and that's already illegal. Maybe your plan won't work. Which we know because it doesn't work...

Comparing bullets to pot is, as you yourself even know, laughable.

I know nothing of the sort, but I am laughing at you so you're part right. All you want to do is make sure that criminals are the only ones who can get bullets and guns.

That aside, nobody's tried my suggestions anyways, so on what do you base your "because it doesn't work" statement?

We have endless gun laws now and you're just expanding them and you're proposing what we do with drugs which doesn't work. You know nothing about the US and you have no interest in learning because you're an elitists snob who already knows everything. But in this country the left make sure anyone can walk across the border from Mexico. But I "even know" they can't just bring bullets and guns with them while they do it, like the do now with drugs. You're the one living in a fantasy land.

 

[Steven_R]

And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.

It just occurred to me that the pictures of dead kids is a great tool. Maybe we should start countering with pictures of Randy Weaver's kids or the kids at Waco or the agent pulling Elian Gonzalez from his aunt's arms at gunpoint. After all, the police and military are the only ones professional enough to use guns responsibly.

So you don't think when someone breaks into your home that making sure you're unarmed to defend them shows how much liberals care about kids? When the government murders Randy Weaver's wife and all the women and children in Waco to your point they suddenly become acceptable losses. Just like government giving Grandma's home in New London to a corporation was an acceptable loss.

The only consistency in liberal arguments is love of government. Your having a gun isn't expanding the power of government. That's the issue. They could give a crap about children dying. Now exploiting the death of children, that they're all over...

Lon Horiuchi had to get it on, man. Vicki Weaver was holding an assault baby. He was totally justified in putting a bullet in her brain. Who knows how dangerous that baby was?

 

[MonaGonna]

Let me see...it is impossible to even look at a gun or box of ammunition without a FIOD card in Illinois, but Chicago is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. The same is true in DC and Baltimore.

Black people in those cities don't hunt, so they shouldn't be buying bullets in the first place.

 

[Bern80]

Let me see...it is impossible to even look at a gun or box of ammunition without a FIOD card in Illinois, but Chicago is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. The same is true in DC and Baltimore.

Black people in those cities don't hunt, so they shouldn't be buying bullets in the first place.

This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am a hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.

 

[candycorn]

Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.

We have lost sight of that.

The tax will fund the government sir.

The police that investigate the shootings, the police that have to mop the blood off the sidewalks, the courts that prosecute the shootings, the emergency rooms that have to remove the shrapnel...those dixie cups they place over the spent shell casings.

All costs money.

At the very least if we're forcing drivers like me who have very few if any accidents to carry liability insurance 24/7, we should at least force gun owners who have very few if any shootings to carry equitable insurance for the elements who aren't so careful.

But that isn't your intent. And like it or not that's what's at question. Your misguided intent is to stigamatize and penalize gun ownership by any means possible. Well you don't have the right to do that because that would be infringing on my right to have a gun. You do have the right to try to get the 2nd ammendment repealed through the processes outlined in the constitution, but you have yet to establish a rationale argument for doing so. And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.

Love it when someone tells me my intent.
What I listed above infringes not one iota on anyone's right.

 

[kaz]

Let me see...it is impossible to even look at a gun or box of ammunition without a FIOD card in Illinois, but Chicago is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. The same is true in DC and Baltimore.

Black people in those cities don't hunt, so they shouldn't be buying bullets in the first place.

Again, begging the question. You don't have a plan to stop anyone from getting bullets, so your point is irrelevant. When you have a plan, read the op and answer the question, it's simple.

 

[kaz]

The tax will fund the government sir.

The police that investigate the shootings, the police that have to mop the blood off the sidewalks, the courts that prosecute the shootings, the emergency rooms that have to remove the shrapnel...those dixie cups they place over the spent shell casings.

All costs money.

At the very least if we're forcing drivers like me who have very few if any accidents to carry liability insurance 24/7, we should at least force gun owners who have very few if any shootings to carry equitable insurance for the elements who aren't so careful.

But that isn't your intent. And like it or not that's what's at question. Your misguided intent is to stigamatize and penalize gun ownership by any means possible. Well you don't have the right to do that because that would be infringing on my right to have a gun. You do have the right to try to get the 2nd ammendment repealed through the processes outlined in the constitution, but you have yet to establish a rationale argument for doing so. And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.

Love it when someone tells me my intent.
What I listed above infringes not one iota on anyone's right.

Hmm...the one who said what your intent was would be you, so why do you object? You've said you want punitive taxes for gun ownership. Why do you object to having what you said repeated back to you exactly?

The issue, is that you only have a plan to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns. You have no idea how to keep them from criminals. We will be safer if when criminals commit crimes, they are the only ones who have a gun. I still don't get how your plan makes us safer.

 

[kaz]

Let me see...it is impossible to even look at a gun or box of ammunition without a FIOD card in Illinois, but Chicago is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. The same is true in DC and Baltimore.

Black people in those cities don't hunt, so they shouldn't be buying bullets in the first place.

This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.

Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes. OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Grandfathering everyone's LEGAL guns would have to do. But eventually, they'll either all stop working, or real gun enthusiasts will take care of them so that they work for generations. But all the crooks... the gun will jam and they'll toss it.
I'd also make it a lot harder to buy bullets. It seems like buying bullets is no problem. That's not good.

Buying pot is no problem and that's already illegal. Maybe your plan won't work. Which we know because it doesn't work...

Comparing bullets to pot is, as you yourself even know, laughable. That aside, nobody's tried my suggestions anyways, so on what do you base your "because it doesn't work" statement?

The gun grabbers have no intention of creating an amendment and trying to pass it. Why? because they know it would never pass. But it is the only legal means to restrict firearms like they want.

 

[MonaGonna]

Black people in those cities don't hunt, so they shouldn't be buying bullets in the first place.

This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.

Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes. OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...

Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?

 

[martybegan]

This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.

Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes. OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...

Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?

The standard progressive mantra. DO SOMETHING!! (is it effective?? WHO CARES ITS SOMETHING!!!!)

all of your ideas are infringement, and thus require a constitutional amendment, get working on that.

 

[JoeNormal]

Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes. OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...

Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?

The standard progressive mantra. DO SOMETHING!! (is it effective?? WHO CARES ITS SOMETHING!!!!)

all of your ideas are infringement, and thus require a constitutional amendment, get working on that.

Mona, the genie is already out of the bottle. You heard it from Marty, there's nothing that can be done. It's just the price we pay for living in a country of gun totin' hillbillies.

 

[martybegan]

Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?

The standard progressive mantra. DO SOMETHING!! (is it effective?? WHO CARES ITS SOMETHING!!!!)

all of your ideas are infringement, and thus require a constitutional amendment, get working on that.

Mona, the genie is already out of the bottle. You heard it from Marty, there's nothing that can be done. It's just the price we pay for living in a country of gun totin' hillbillies.

Things can be done. Enforce current laws if you catch a felon with a firearm. Create a system where mentally deficient people are adjudicated and prevented from owning firearms. Increase penalties for committing crimes with a firearm. Allow people who have CCW's to carry their weapons except in controlled perimeter locations.

All of these can be done without infringing on my right to own a firearm, and would actually do something to reduce gun violence.

 

[Steven_R]

Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?

Yes, and it's a simple three step program.

1) Put violent criminals in prison and keep them there until they are no longer a threat to the community
2) Have a real mental health system in this country
3) Treat each and every citizen as a responsible adult until such time as that individual proves through actions that he or she is incapable of being trusted with those rights and then refer back to 1 or 2.

 

[kaz]

Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?

The standard progressive mantra. DO SOMETHING!! (is it effective?? WHO CARES ITS SOMETHING!!!!)

all of your ideas are infringement, and thus require a constitutional amendment, get working on that.

Mona, the genie is already out of the bottle. You heard it from Marty, there's nothing that can be done. It's just the price we pay for living in a country of gun totin' hillbillies.

This is a point I made before, the gun totin' hillbillies are the cliche, but they are committing very few of the murders. Liberals are just saying we don't want criminals to have guns, so let's make them illegal. Then they just assume that would work and discuss it as if that way there are no more guns. Criminals won't be able to figure out then how to commit crimes. Farts will smell like lilacs, we'll all sing kumbaya and dogs will lie down with cats.

Candycane did mention it was going to take a while, so we should start now. She's not told us yet what color the sky is in her world. I'm thinking it's cotton candy pink.

 

[kaz]

This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.

Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes. OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...

Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?

These are all how you keep hands out of honest citizens. The question in the op was how you keep them away from criminals. Any thought on that or are you just sticking with the American liberal plan of making sure only government and the criminals are armed?

 

[MonaGonna]

Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes. OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...

Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?

These are all how you keep hands out of honest citizens. The question in the op was how you keep them away from criminals. Any thought on that or are you just sticking with the American liberal plan of making sure only government and the criminals are armed?

Maybe you should re-read what I said: you can't be on drugs to buy a gun or ammo. Criminals all use drugs. Close the fucking barn door already. And I never said you couldn't have a gun to protect yourself. Geez, re-read what i posted for real.

 

[kaz]

Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?

These are all how you keep hands out of honest citizens. The question in the op was how you keep them away from criminals. Any thought on that or are you just sticking with the American liberal plan of making sure only government and the criminals are armed?

Maybe you should re-read what I said: you can't be on drugs to buy a gun or ammo. Criminals all use drugs. Close the fucking barn door already. And I never said you couldn't have a gun to protect yourself. Geez, re-read what i posted for real.

And I specifically addressed your point repeatedly. You are just assuming that if a gun or ammo are illegal that criminals won't be able to buy them. The point is that they can and do buy them anyway.

Geez, read the op for real.

 

[MonaGonna]

These are all how you keep hands out of honest citizens. The question in the op was how you keep them away from criminals. Any thought on that or are you just sticking with the American liberal plan of making sure only government and the criminals are armed?

Maybe you should re-read what I said: you can't be on drugs to buy a gun or ammo. Criminals all use drugs. Close the fucking barn door already. And I never said you couldn't have a gun to protect yourself. Geez, re-read what i posted for real.

And I specifically addressed your point repeatedly. You are just assuming that if a gun or ammo are illegal that criminals won't be able to buy them. The point is that they can and do buy them anyway.

Geez, read the op for real.

If each person can only buy 1 gun every ten years, no assault weapons... and you can't be on drugs, how are criminals going to arm up their posses?

 

[Bern80]

The tax will fund the government sir.

The police that investigate the shootings, the police that have to mop the blood off the sidewalks, the courts that prosecute the shootings, the emergency rooms that have to remove the shrapnel...those dixie cups they place over the spent shell casings.

All costs money.

At the very least if we're forcing drivers like me who have very few if any accidents to carry liability insurance 24/7, we should at least force gun owners who have very few if any shootings to carry equitable insurance for the elements who aren't so careful.

But that isn't your intent. And like it or not that's what's at question. Your misguided intent is to stigamatize and penalize gun ownership by any means possible. Well you don't have the right to do that because that would be infringing on my right to have a gun. You do have the right to try to get the 2nd ammendment repealed through the processes outlined in the constitution, but you have yet to establish a rationale argument for doing so. And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.

Love it when someone tells me my intent.
What I listed above infringes not one iota on anyone's right.

Not sure why you're amused by me telling you your intent when you've stated it several times here. When you make it more difficult for me to exercise my right you are indeed infringing on it. This would be a case where words truly mean something. Specifically the word 'infringe'. I can infringe on your ability to own a car by placing high taxes on it, but I'm I still infringing on your ability to own one by doing so. The 2nd amendment does not read 'shall not be repealed'.

You really need to look at this in context of the constitution and individual freedom. Individual liberty is kind of a major concept in our society and to the founders. They recognized that the rights of individuals, including their right to life, does not come from government. It's inalienable. Therefore if I have the right to life and freedom then i have the right to defend myself against anyone who would attempt to take it by any means necessary. That's what the second amendment is really about. It is about acknowledging the the fact that the individual has the right to defend their own liberty. Not only should you consider that the amendment exists at all, you should consider that it's the 2nd amendment of the constitution. That the framers believed the only thing more important than the right to defend one's liberty is the concept that you actual have liberty in the form of freedom of speech and self expression in the first place (no pun intended).