CDZ The Gun Supply Chain: People who should not have been allowed near a gun, much less to buy one

[Pete7469]

There is NO WAY to stop gun crime.
PERIOD.

Spoken like a true criminal. Or an anarchist, I don't know which. But whichever, MOST people in this country would like to see us shooting each other less often.

Parroted like a mindless libturd.

There is gun crime in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY. No matter how draconian their laws. Mexico has some of the most strict laws in the world, and it's on the brink of a civil war.

Of course everyone wants less gun violence, but the only way to achieve that is to eliminate the pool of vulnerable victims by ARMING THEM, you ignorant fuck face.

 

[Wilbur Right]

When someone commits a crime with a gun, arrest them.

2) When a felon is caught buying, owning or carrying a gun, arrest them.

3) for the above two situations, apply a 30 year sentence for the gun crime.

First question....who pays for it...?

Is it free?

So you gonna pay for these thirty year sentences?

 

[2aguy]

When someone commits a crime with a gun, arrest them.

2) When a felon is caught buying, owning or carrying a gun, arrest them.

3) for the above two situations, apply a 30 year sentence for the gun crime.

First question....who pays for it...?

Is it free?

So you gonna pay for these thirty year sentences?

Yep.....better than letting them murder someone......especially a kid playing in a playground who gets hit when they are trying to off a rival......don't you think....?

 

[2aguy]

Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

Fewer and fewer Americans remain who are gullible and.or ignorant enough, any more, to believe this lie. Those of you on the wrong keep repeating it, along with other lies related to this issue, but all you're accomplishing, any more, is to show sane, decent, law-abiding American what lying scumbags those on your side truly are.

You like to hide behind talk of “reasonable regulations” against a right which the Constitution explicitly forbids government from infringing; but you're not nearly as good as you think you are at hiding your true motives and intentions. In fact, you're getting to be almost as obvious as the Ku Klux Klan was when it successfully lobbied for the first gun control laws in this nation, specifically aimed at disarming black people; or Timothy Sullivan, the violent criminal gangster-turned-politician who crafted New York's Sullivan Act, specifically to facilitate the disarming of law-abiding citizens as well as rival criminal gangs, to give his own gang an advantage. Your motives today are no better, and not much different.

Sane folks who want to see gun-caused deaths ended or reduced in number and frequency have been very clear about that. One thing folks in that camp want to do is curtail the instances of seemingly "okay to own a gun" folks exercising that right and then abusing it by shooting another individual, or threatening them with being shot.

The real solution, of course, is to lock up hard, violent criminals, and keep them locked up, or else, in the worst cases, put them to death. Funny, but your side has generally tended to oppose this. Your side has historically tended to take the side of these criminals, against that of law-abiding citizens. As with the above examples of the Ku Klux Klan, and Timothy Sullivan, I think it's pretty obvious what your true motive is behind seeking to violate the Second Amendment. You know damn well that the effect of any policies you advocate will be to disproportionately disarm law-abiding citizens, making us easier prey for the criminals that you favor.

BINGO!!!

Whenever someone starts a post with;

Nobody wants to eliminate one's ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment right

You know that is EXACTLY what the ultimate objective is. There is NO WAY to stop gun crime.

PERIOD.

Let's say the meat puppet faggot acquired magic powers, waved his magic dildo and all the privately owned guns in the entire world disappear. The world would be awash the next day by guns stolen from government vaults and sold for several times their value.

In Peshawar there is an entire industry of people making every sort of crude but fully functional machine gun and destructive device that can be made with minimal tools and skills. The Pakistani government doesn't dare interfere.

Compare that with the thousands of people in North America that have hobby machine shops and can turn out well crafted and highly accurate precision weapons. Do you think that anything will stop them from doing so? Laws against making meth make it possible to get a life sentence, yet people still break those laws to make a few hundred dollars. Care to wager that people won't take a chance to make several thousand turning a chunk of steel into a 1911?

The vast depth of liberal ignorance would pierce the core of the universe if it could be measured at all.

There is NO WAY to stop gun crime.
PERIOD.

Spoken like a true criminal. Or an anarchist, I don't know which. But whichever, MOST people in this country would like to see us shooting each other less often.

So you acknowledge that France has every single gun law that you want?

Do you acknowledge, from the links I have shown from actual French police that criminals and terrorists get guns easily in France..?

Do you admit this...or will you deny it?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To be fair, I also say 2A and M14 are idiots for not agreeing that my compromise is both fair and logical. AND would actually work.

You want us to give up part of what is rightfully ours, and offer us nothing meaningful in return. What you are asking for is not compromise; it's surrender. And there is absolutely no reason why you should get it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Simple Bob, just like with voter ID , the government ensuring that you ARE able to exercise a right is not infringing on that right.

Interfering with one's legitimate exercise of a right does not constitute making sure one is able to exercise it. It's the opposite.

Surely you don't believe that felons should be allowed to vote or buy guns?

Felons who have proven themselves too dangerous to be allowed in free society, need to be permanently removed from free society—either put to death, or locked up for life with no parole.

If we dealt appropriately with such criminals, then there'd be no reason to argue about whether they should be allowed to vote or bear arms. They'd all be either dead or in prison.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

All of which is blatantly unconstitutional. Where, in the words, “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed”, do you find any justification for government to interfere to that degree with the people's exercise of the right so affirmed?

I don't see that as in infringement. It's not stopping anyone legally allowed to purchase a gun from obtaining one.

I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to own guns do you?

It's requiring one to obtain permission from government,and to prove that one meets government's arbitrary requirements,as a condition of being allowed to exercise a right. It allows government to presume someone guilty,and on that basis, to deny that person a right, until that person proves himself innocent.

It makes a mockery of the principles on which our Constitution and our legal system are based; and puts government in the role of our master, rather than our servant.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Bingo, it's the same thing as Voter ID. You don't want people who shouldn't be voting, voting.

There is an important difference.

The right to vote is meaningless, unless the electoral process is protected from fraudulent voting. To allow fraudulent votes to be cast and counted has the effect of disenfranchising legitimate voters, by diluting their votes. In order to be legitimate, the electoral process must contain controls to ensure that only those who are eligible to vote in a particular election, is allowed to cast a vote and have that vote counted, and that every eligible voter is allowed to vote only once. Allowing the process to be corrupted violates the rights of all voters.

One person's right to keep and bear arms is not, ever, in any way violated, by someone else also exercising that right, no matter what arguments one might try to make that that other person ought not be allowed that right. If I own but one gun, my right to own it is not in any way impacted if my neighbor owns a dozen guns. And if, by any means my neighbor with a dozen guns is somehow judged to be someone who shouldn't own guns, then that still doesn't impact my right to own my one gun; other than that it opens the door for some criterion to be brought up in the future which might be used as an excuse to deny me this right.

 

[Pete7469]

Bingo, it's the same thing as Voter ID. You don't want people who shouldn't be voting, voting.

Bullshit.

There is no right to vote in the BOR, and voter ID laws are intended to keep democrooks from cheating.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is no right to vote in the BOR, and voter ID laws are intended to keep democrooks from cheating.

Voting rights are in the Constitution, just not clearly and sharply defined in one amendment, as the right to keep and bear arms is.

But I think it is quite obvious enough why it is that Democrats are so desperate to oppose any efforts to prevent voter fraud. They are the party that encourages voter fraud, and they are the party that expects to benefit from it. There is at least one congresscrook in office,right now, who achieved her position as a direct result of voter fraud. Loretta Sanchez, in her first run for that office against then-incumbent Bob Dornan, actively encouraged invading foreign criminals to vote for her. She defeated Mr. Dornan by fewer than a thousand votes. An investigation into this was never fully completed, but solidly proved at least seven hundred illegal votes, and suggested that the number of illegal votes was very likely as high as four thousand or so.

 

[2aguy]

All of which is blatantly unconstitutional. Where, in the words, “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed”, do you find any justification for government to interfere to that degree with the people's exercise of the right so affirmed?

I don't see that as in infringement. It's not stopping anyone legally allowed to purchase a gun from obtaining one.

I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to own guns do you?

It's requiring one to obtain permission from government,and to prove that one meets government's arbitrary requirements,as a condition of being allowed to exercise a right. It allows government to presume someone guilty,and on that basis, to deny that person a right, until that person proves himself innocent.

It makes a mockery of the principles on which our Constitution and our legal system are based; and puts government in the role of our master, rather than our servant.

Thank you......that is well said........and exactly on point.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

All of which is blatantly unconstitutional. Where, in the words, “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed”, do you find any justification for government to interfere to that degree with the people's exercise of the right so affirmed?

I don't see that as in infringement. It's not stopping anyone legally allowed to purchase a gun from obtaining one.

I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to own guns do you?

It's requiring one to obtain permission from government,and to prove that one meets government's arbitrary requirements,as a condition of being allowed to exercise a right. It allows government to presume someone guilty,and on that basis, to deny that person a right, until that person proves himself innocent.

It makes a mockery of the principles on which our Constitution and our legal system are based; and puts government in the role of our master, rather than our servant.

So any felon with a history of violence can own a gun?

While I'm totally against any type of weapon ban or magazine limits I don't want anyone with a criminal record to have a weapon. So if I want to buy a gun from a friend it's no big deal to me to meet him at a nearby gun shop and have a dealer involved in the loop.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Simple Bob, just like with voter ID , the government ensuring that you ARE able to exercise a right is not infringing on that right.

Interfering with one's legitimate exercise of a right does not constitute making sure one is able to exercise it. It's the opposite.

Surely you don't believe that felons should be allowed to vote or buy guns?

Felons who have proven themselves too dangerous to be allowed in free society, need to be permanently removed from free society—either put to death, or locked up for life with no parole.

If we dealt appropriately with such criminals, then there'd be no reason to argue about whether they should be allowed to vote or bear arms. They'd all be either dead or in prison.

That's true but it's not going to happen

ANd I don't think it's interference because a background check will not prevent me from getting a gun because i have no criminal history.

Let me ask you this before we go any further

Is it your position that everyone should be able to buy firearms no questions asked or are there some people who have demonstrated that they are not capable of handling the responsibility of owning firearms and should be denied ownership?

 

[320 Years of History]

If we dealt appropriately with such criminals, then there'd be no reason to argue about whether they should be allowed to vote or bear arms. They'd all be either dead or in prison.

Well, if that isn't a draconian, simple and balmy solution -- lifelong imprisonment or death for all persons convicted of a felony -- I don't know what is.

 

[320 Years of History]

All of which is blatantly unconstitutional. Where, in the words, “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed”, do you find any justification for government to interfere to that degree with the people's exercise of the right so affirmed?

I don't see that as in infringement. It's not stopping anyone legally allowed to purchase a gun from obtaining one.

I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to own guns do you?

It's requiring one to obtain permission from government,and to prove that one meets government's arbitrary requirements,as a condition of being allowed to exercise a right. It allows government to presume someone guilty,and on that basis, to deny that person a right, until that person proves himself innocent.

It makes a mockery of the principles on which our Constitution and our legal system are based; and puts government in the role of our master, rather than our servant.

So any felon with a history of violence can own a gun?

While I'm totally against any type of weapon ban or magazine limits I don't want anyone with a criminal record to have a weapon. So if I want to buy a gun from a friend it's no big deal to me to meet him at a nearby gun shop and have a dealer involved in the loop.

Oh, my...you've proposed a proactive regulation that aims to reduce the possibility that folks who have no business getting a gun can get a gun.

Though I don't right now have an opinion about your suggestion, that it's a creative idea that addresses the matter at hand is a good thing. Concur with it or not, it's at least something positive and that can be built upon and/or used to inspire even better approaches. Innovative solution ideas are what I asked for in the OP. TY for providing one.

 

[Skull Pilot]

All of which is blatantly unconstitutional. Where, in the words, “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed”, do you find any justification for government to interfere to that degree with the people's exercise of the right so affirmed?

I don't see that as in infringement. It's not stopping anyone legally allowed to purchase a gun from obtaining one.

I don't have a problem denying convicted felons the right to own guns do you?

It's requiring one to obtain permission from government,and to prove that one meets government's arbitrary requirements,as a condition of being allowed to exercise a right. It allows government to presume someone guilty,and on that basis, to deny that person a right, until that person proves himself innocent.

It makes a mockery of the principles on which our Constitution and our legal system are based; and puts government in the role of our master, rather than our servant.

So any felon with a history of violence can own a gun?

While I'm totally against any type of weapon ban or magazine limits I don't want anyone with a criminal record to have a weapon. So if I want to buy a gun from a friend it's no big deal to me to meet him at a nearby gun shop and have a dealer involved in the loop.

Oh, my...you've proposed a proactive regulation that aims to reduced the possibility that folks who have no business getting a gun can get a gun.

Though I don't right now have an opinion about your suggestion, that it's a creative idea that addresses the matter at hand is a good thing. Concur with it or not, it's at least something positive and that can be built upon and/or used to inspire even better approaches. Innovative solution ideas are what I asked for in the OP. TY for providing one.

It will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun. Which is what I said about all laws. The only thing my suggestion will do is to make sure a law abiding gun owner will not inadvertently sell to a criminal. It will not stop a criminal from illegally obtaining a gun

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So any felon with a history of violence can own a gun?

If he's that dangerous, then he should never be returned to free society. He should be either put to death, or else kept in prison for life.

Failure, on the part of government, to fulfill this simple and obvious purpose, is no excuse for it to violate the Constitution or to interfere with the free exercise by any free American, of any of the rights that the Constitution affirms.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So any felon with a history of violence can own a gun?

If he's that dangerous, then he should never be returned to free society. He should be either put to death, or else kept in prison for life.

Failure, on the part of government, to fulfill this simple and obvious purpose, is no excuse for it to violate the Constitution or to interfere with the free exercise by any free American, of any of the rights that the Constitution affirms.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas

Our current system does not keep violent felons locked up forever does it?

So while we wait for that to happen what do you propose we do to at least make it as difficult as possible for felons or anyone with a criminal record from getting guns

I realize it won't stop criminal from getting guns altogether but if during a private sale I am making sure I don't sell to a felon I don't see the big deal of having a licensed dealer in the loop if only because it indemnifies me from the actions of the buyer of my gun

 

[Bob Blaylock]

ANd I don't think it's interference because a background check will not prevent me from getting a gun because i have no criminal history.

The only purpose served by a background check is to facilitate governments illegal efforts to discriminate against some free Americans by denying them a right that belongs just as much to them as to any other free American. Government has no such authority, as long as the Second Amendment stands. If you don't like it, then the only legitimate remedy is to try to get a new amendment ratified to the Constitution, which overturns eh Second Amendment.

Funny, that those of you who are so eager to grovel before government, and surrender our most essential rights thereto, are never willing to pursue this one legitimate means of doing so.

 

[Skull Pilot]

ANd I don't think it's interference because a background check will not prevent me from getting a gun because i have no criminal history.

The only purpose served by a background check is to facilitate governments illegal efforts to discriminate against some free Americans by denying them a right that belongs just as much to them as to any other free American. Government has no such authority, as long as the Second Amendment stands. If you don't like it, then the only legitimate remedy is to try to get a new amendment ratified to the Constitution, which overturns eh Second Amendment.

Funny, that those of you who are so eager to grovel before government, and surrender our most essential rights thereto, are never willing to pursue this one legitimate means of doing so.

So it is your position that anyone with a criminal record should be able to buy a gun no questions asked.