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

[kaz]

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally

in the case of obamas fast n furious

the answer is NO

A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.

Actually a lot of guns are smuggled into the United States. Guns are stolen in robberies. There are old guns that aren't on the radar.

However, that's irrelevant to the argument, which is not about the past, it's about the future. If you clamp down on them, then in addition to the current massive gun inventory, gun dealers can simply smuggle them in across the open border with Mexico like they do drugs.

And the people who want gun restrictions, liberals, are the same people who demonize anyone who tries to do anything to restrict free access to the US from Mexico.

 

[kaz]

A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.

you are simply incorrect

in fast n furious the feds waived through felons and straw purchasers

in order to pass out and lose guns in mexico

You'd have to translate this into English for me to respond.

He's referring to an Obama administration program in which they gave a massive number of guns to drug dealers. Those guns were used to commit a large number of murders, including several US border agents. We got nothing from the program. In theory they were supposed to track the guns, but there seemed to be no program to do that and no arrests ever came from the program.

Obama lied about it. He said he knew nothing about it. But he used executive privilege to block any investigation. He can only use executive privilege if he knows about it. Since he said both he knew and didn't know, one was a lie.

 

[P@triot]

 

[MonaGonna]

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally

in the case of obamas fast n furious

the answer is NO

A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.

Actually a lot of guns are smuggled into the United States. Guns are stolen in robberies. There are old guns that aren't on the radar.

However, that's irrelevant to the argument, which is not about the past, it's about the future. If you clamp down on them, then in addition to the current massive gun inventory, gun dealers can simply smuggle them in across the open border with Mexico like they do drugs.

And the people who want gun restrictions, liberals, are the same people who demonize anyone who tries to do anything to restrict free access to the US from Mexico.

I may be wrong, but aren't the guns coming from Mexico US made? Does Mexico even make guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read my post again. I agree with you: stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns, BUT, I went on to say, this shouldn't be the standard for evaluating the merit of stricter gun laws. I suggested that the standard should be this: stricter gun laws are worth it if they prevent one death without unduly restricting constitutionally protected rights. You addressed none of this.

How is this a rational basis?
To what other rights does this rational basis then apply?
How do you define "undue restriction"? How is that definition sound? How does "undue restriction" compare and contrast to "infringement"?
What "stricter gun law(s)" will prevent one deth?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun control does not work on its own. Denying guns to law abiding citizens does not keep ANY guns from criminals since they do not legally buy their weapons. Outlaw guns and the only people that will have them will be the Government and the outlaws.

Our southern border is porous as hell, guns can easily come through there with already established drug routes. Further they can be smuggled in through our ports and made in backyards and garages. Same for ammo. And no the price won't go up so much that criminals can not afford firearms.

More firearms deters crime. Criminals feel less safe doing the criminal deed if they know anyone might be armed. That is why most mass shootings occur in gun free zones, the shooter knows no one can hurt him while he kills as many as he can before the cops arrive.

In EVERY State that has lessened gun laws crime rates have gone DOWN. In every location that has strict onerous gun laws crime rates are high.

One does not effect criminal possession of firearms by denying weapons to law abiding citizens, anyone that proposes that is an idiot.

Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?

This is not at all necessarily so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed

-Geaux

Society would be even safer if those people who have guns all shot themselves.

Thank you for yet again proving that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
People like you make it less and less likely that further gun control laws will be enacted - keep up the good work.

 

[Ernie S.]

A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.

I have the equipment, knowledge and skill to make guns. I am not all that unusual.

Criminals aren't using home made guns. I'm pretty sure even YOU know that. So why spout such nonsense in the first place?

But drug addicts are using home made meth, aren't they?
If I made a dozen guns a year, not many people would be able to afford them, but if legal guns are made more difficult to get, I could ramp up production. Then ALL of my guns would be illegal sales and government would have zero control.

Go ahead, make me a rich man. I dare you.

 

[kaz]

A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.

Actually a lot of guns are smuggled into the United States. Guns are stolen in robberies. There are old guns that aren't on the radar.

However, that's irrelevant to the argument, which is not about the past, it's about the future. If you clamp down on them, then in addition to the current massive gun inventory, gun dealers can simply smuggle them in across the open border with Mexico like they do drugs.

And the people who want gun restrictions, liberals, are the same people who demonize anyone who tries to do anything to restrict free access to the US from Mexico.

I may be wrong, but aren't the guns coming from Mexico US made? Does Mexico even make guns?

Some are and some are not US made, but again, what is the relevance of that since we are talking going forward?

As for Mexico, most drugs smuggled from Mexico are not Mexican grown. Mexico has far less lax security than even we do. Al Qaeda could fly to Mexico city and walk across the border. Smuggling drugs into Mexico is simple, then you just take them across the border to the US. Mexican officials are also notoriously corrupt. Basically you can get anyone or anything into Mexico and once it's in Mexico you just take it across the border.

Do you not grasp that if guns are clamped down on in the US, then bad guys have more incentive to bring them in from Mexico? Just like they do drugs? What is the relevance of your harping on what they do now specifically when the question is what will happen once guns are illegal or more restricted?

The point of the op is that drugs are illegal now, yet even teenagers can get them freely. IF ... you make guns illegal or harder to get ... THEN ... criminals can simply do what they do with drugs now with guns. What's hard about that? Why can't you address it?

And BTW, that's what happened with alcohol in prohibition, all you did was fund organized crime, anyone could still get alcohol. At what point will people learn from our mistakes?

 

[kaz]

Read my post again. I agree with you: stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns, BUT, I went on to say, this shouldn't be the standard for evaluating the merit of stricter gun laws. I suggested that the standard should be this: stricter gun laws are worth it if they prevent one death without unduly restricting constitutionally protected rights. You addressed none of this.

How is this a rational basis?
To what other rights does this rational basis then apply?
How do you define "undue restriction"? How is that definition sound? How does "undue restriction" compare and contrast to "infringement"?
What "stricter gun law(s)" will prevent one deth?

Exactly. What other freedom in the bill of rights is subject to the test that if one death results, then government can take away the freedom?

Can we get rid of Obamacare if one death results?

 

[Londoner]

you continue to advocate limiting the rights of law abiding gun owners (who are the only ones who abide by the law) leading one to believe that your agenda is actually different than the one that you publically claim. Therefore, your argument ultimately fails.

Provide a link to where I've advocated something that limits the rights of law abiding gun owners.

You didn't read my post. You are just spamming for your agenda.

I said that the litmus test for a particular law should not be that it prevents all criminals from breaking the law (which is an impossible standard to satisfy), but rather that the standard should be this: an additional law is worth implementing if it limits the offending behavior without trampling constitutionally protected rights.

Here is the dumbest argument I've heard so far. "Because we already have laws that limit the illegal act, we cannot pass additional laws that further limit the illegal act". By this logic we can't pass additional laws to limit abortion because we already have laws that limit abortion. This is fucking insane. The fact that many sates require parental notification for minors (which is done to limit abortions) doesn't mean that the Pro Life Movement cannot make/new additional proposals.

Each new proposed law should be evaluated separately to see if it will limit the illegal behavior without interfering with constitutionally protected rights. Moreover: just because some minors in Kentucky will get around the Parental Notification law doesn't mean that the law is useless in preventing some abortions. Nor does it mean that further laws cannot be proposed to achieve the same goal, provided they meet the standard of not trampling constitutionally protected rights. You can do better.

 

[MonaGonna]

Actually a lot of guns are smuggled into the United States. Guns are stolen in robberies. There are old guns that aren't on the radar.

However, that's irrelevant to the argument, which is not about the past, it's about the future. If you clamp down on them, then in addition to the current massive gun inventory, gun dealers can simply smuggle them in across the open border with Mexico like they do drugs.

And the people who want gun restrictions, liberals, are the same people who demonize anyone who tries to do anything to restrict free access to the US from Mexico.

I may be wrong, but aren't the guns coming from Mexico US made? Does Mexico even make guns?

Some are and some are not US made, but again, what is the relevance of that since we are talking going forward?

As for Mexico, most drugs smuggled from Mexico are not Mexican grown. Mexico has far less lax security than even we do. Al Qaeda could fly to Mexico city and walk across the border. Smuggling drugs into Mexico is simple, then you just take them across the border to the US. Mexican officials are also notoriously corrupt. Basically you can get anyone or anything into Mexico and once it's in Mexico you just take it across the border.

Do you not grasp that if guns are clamped down on in the US, then bad guys have more incentive to bring them in from Mexico? Just like they do drugs? What is the relevance of your harping on what they do now specifically when the question is what will happen once guns are illegal or more restricted?

The point of the op is that drugs are illegal now, yet even teenagers can get them freely. IF ... you make guns illegal or harder to get ... THEN ... criminals can simply do what they do with drugs now with guns. What's hard about that? Why can't you address it?

And BTW, that's what happened with alcohol in prohibition, all you did was fund organized crime, anyone could still get alcohol. At what point will people learn from our mistakes?

Aside from Mexican evil-doers getting their guns in the US, countries with stricter gun laws have less gun deaths. Can't get around that. That's not emotion... That's a fact.

 

[kaz]

I may be wrong, but aren't the guns coming from Mexico US made? Does Mexico even make guns?

Some are and some are not US made, but again, what is the relevance of that since we are talking going forward?

As for Mexico, most drugs smuggled from Mexico are not Mexican grown. Mexico has far less lax security than even we do. Al Qaeda could fly to Mexico city and walk across the border. Smuggling drugs into Mexico is simple, then you just take them across the border to the US. Mexican officials are also notoriously corrupt. Basically you can get anyone or anything into Mexico and once it's in Mexico you just take it across the border.

Do you not grasp that if guns are clamped down on in the US, then bad guys have more incentive to bring them in from Mexico? Just like they do drugs? What is the relevance of your harping on what they do now specifically when the question is what will happen once guns are illegal or more restricted?

The point of the op is that drugs are illegal now, yet even teenagers can get them freely. IF ... you make guns illegal or harder to get ... THEN ... criminals can simply do what they do with drugs now with guns. What's hard about that? Why can't you address it?

And BTW, that's what happened with alcohol in prohibition, all you did was fund organized crime, anyone could still get alcohol. At what point will people learn from our mistakes?

Aside from Mexican evil-doers getting their guns in the US, countries with stricter gun laws have less gun deaths. Can't get around that. That's not emotion... That's a fact.

Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who have a gun culture like we do and undid the culture by enacting gun laws.

Not sure why you hesitate to say what country you're from, but you said it has a gun culture. Seriously, gun owners in your country will just give them up? It would work to restrict them? You really believe that?

 

[kaz]

I said that the litmus test for a particular law should not be that it prevents all criminals from breaking the law (which is an impossible standard to satisfy), but rather that the standard should be this: an additional law is worth implementing if it limits the offending behavior without trampling constitutionally protected rights.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What that Constitutional right confuses you?

 

[MonaGonna]

Some are and some are not US made, but again, what is the relevance of that since we are talking going forward?

As for Mexico, most drugs smuggled from Mexico are not Mexican grown. Mexico has far less lax security than even we do. Al Qaeda could fly to Mexico city and walk across the border. Smuggling drugs into Mexico is simple, then you just take them across the border to the US. Mexican officials are also notoriously corrupt. Basically you can get anyone or anything into Mexico and once it's in Mexico you just take it across the border.

Do you not grasp that if guns are clamped down on in the US, then bad guys have more incentive to bring them in from Mexico? Just like they do drugs? What is the relevance of your harping on what they do now specifically when the question is what will happen once guns are illegal or more restricted?

The point of the op is that drugs are illegal now, yet even teenagers can get them freely. IF ... you make guns illegal or harder to get ... THEN ... criminals can simply do what they do with drugs now with guns. What's hard about that? Why can't you address it?

And BTW, that's what happened with alcohol in prohibition, all you did was fund organized crime, anyone could still get alcohol. At what point will people learn from our mistakes?

Aside from Mexican evil-doers getting their guns in the US, countries with stricter gun laws have less gun deaths. Can't get around that. That's not emotion... That's a fact.

Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who have a gun culture like we do and undid the culture by enacting gun laws.

Not sure why you hesitate to say what country you're from, but you said it has a gun culture. Seriously, gun owners in your country will just give them up? It would work to restrict them? You really believe that?

We don't have a gun culture where I live. Nice and peaceful. I don't think that there's EVER been a shooting in my town, ever.

 

[Pogo]

Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who have a gun culture like we do ....

And you were trying to pretend you didn't get my point.

Freudian slip.

Thanks for playin'.

 

[kaz]

Aside from Mexican evil-doers getting their guns in the US, countries with stricter gun laws have less gun deaths. Can't get around that. That's not emotion... That's a fact.

Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who have a gun culture like we do and undid the culture by enacting gun laws.

Not sure why you hesitate to say what country you're from, but you said it has a gun culture. Seriously, gun owners in your country will just give them up? It would work to restrict them? You really believe that?

We don't have a gun culture where I live. Nice and peaceful. I don't think that there's EVER been a shooting in my town, ever.

Why are you evasive about what country you live in?

 

[kaz]

Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who have a gun culture like we do ....

And you were trying to pretend you didn't get my point.

Freudian slip.

Thanks for playin'.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

What is your view on gun laws since your transactional points all contradict each other?

Liberalism is a transactional ideology where your positions and arguments all endlessly contradict each other.

You're afraid now to just plainly state your clear and complete view because even you know I'm going to take you apart with your quotes.

 

[Londoner]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What that Constitutional right confuses you?

Kaz, with all do respect, you make it confusing when you don't flesh out the full context.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....

The First Amendment bluntly asserts our natural right to freedom of and from religion, and to democratic dialog and belief.

But the Second is compelled to say why. And it starts with a monumental hyphenation: well-regulated.

Why? Because to be of any value to a free state, a militia -- a citizen army -- must be organized. It can't be a bunch of free-lancers running around with uncontrolled weapons, killing whomever they please.

And what's the goal?

Security, as explicitly as Madison could make it.

That means safe not only from foreign invaders, but from unconstrained gun bearers killing small children, theater-goers, presidents, civil rights leaders, rock stars, random bystanders and whomever else they fell like it at every whim.

Now we have once again come to know that too many of those within our midst, bearing weapons without constraint, pose the greatest threat of all to the security of our free state.

If we are insecure in the belief that we can send our children to an elementary school and not have them killed, then we are secure in absolutely nothing.

Guns kill people, and guns in the hands of crazy people kill children... and so many others... and we have seen the reality of this far too often not to act.

It has become clearly "necessary to the security of a free state" that the right to bear arms must be "well-regulated," as in an organized militia.
(The above is an argument by Harry Wasserman)

 

[kaz]

The First Amendment bluntly asserts our natural right to freedom of and from religion, and to democratic dialog and belief.

Freedom of religion I agree, I don't know what freedom "from" religion means.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What that Constitutional right confuses you?

Kaz, with all do respect, you make it confusing when you don't flesh out the full context.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....

...

But the Second is compelled to say why. And it starts with a monumental hyphenation: well-regulated.

Interesting you use the correct word, "why." Why is an explanation, not a restriction.

Where
A = A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
B = The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says because A, B. I doesn't say B if A. A stands alone.

And the reason for that is that militias are of the citizenry. It is up to the people what a militia is, it is not up to government. Keep in mind what the Constitution is, it's a restriction on Federal government power.

That militias refer to government, like the national guard, would be preposterous. I didn't see you specifically say that. But that they would in a limitation of Federal powers say that government can declare itself to be a militia would be absurd.

Similarly if government can even define militias then it's a non right. It would be saying government can decide if you have the right to have a gun or not, that would be a non-right.

Also I hope you realize the word "regulated" doesn't necessarily mean government regulation. It only makes sense that it's citizen regulated. Anything else would say they went so far as to include this in 10 specific limitations on government power, then gave the government the power to just decide what the right is and who gets it.

The writings of the founding fathers across the board added a reason for guns that you omitted, protection from our own government. They were in fact more concerned with that than any other protection. Again meaning that to believe that government, which they feared, could tell the people what guns they can have and who can have them. It's completely illogical.