The only laws that will disarm criminals, is a TOTAL BAN, followed by confiscation

[martybegan]

It's how the brain-dead try to win arguments, they make your position out to be unreasonable and demand all or nothing results from what you've come up with. Anything short of that is a failure.

Really, what we should do is basically treat them like we did cigarettes and place giant taxes on the sale. When the price gets too high, the demand dries up, gun companies stop making/importing guns and you have at least cut off the influx. After that, as gun crimes are committed, you confiscate the weapons from the criminals and you begin to cut the supply. You couple that with sentences that work--20 to 30 years if you use or brandish a firearm during a crime; no parole. It will take quite a long time but what you'll end up with is three things:

Guns being so expensive due to lack of supply that the firearms the gun nuts swear you can buy on any street corner (funny how I never see any of these corners) become cost prohibitive. So you have less gun violence.

Guns that would have been sold to law abiding folks who wanted them for protection are not sold so they are not stolen/used by others for commission of crimes

Guns that are bought and used by responsible people for punching paper or hunting or sports shooting or self defense stay in the hands of the responsible people who take gun ownership seriously.

It would just take common sense to implement these steps tomorrow but since the NRA is involved and 200+ old dogma is still believed by 1/2 the population (roughly the same half that believes that some dude sitting on a cloud controls their destiny); there is no chance we will act like grown-ups.

Taxing them for the sake of making it harder for a law abiding citizen to own them is infringement. Again, repeal the 2nd if you want to do that.

And considering I can go to a local bodega and buy smokes (if I wanted to not a smoker) that doesn't have the tax sticker attached, how hard do you think it would be to avoid the gun tax? About as hard as criminals find it to avoid background checks and such.

You keep saying you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters, but all your proposals involve making it harder for the very law abiding citizens grabbers claim they don't want to impact.

Lies on top of lies, and you wonder why RKBA proponents don't trust gun control supporters?

Your opinions are useless; none of what you said is true. "Infringement" could be argued if the gun companies are charging any price at all so it becomes an argument of degrees of what is standard and customary and what is not.... Now that we have weekly massacres and you support the right to massacre, I doubt jurists would continue to see the logic in maintaining the status quo.

As for the bodega...yeah...whatever...

You increase the costs of gun ownership through taxes, bonds/insurance, permit fees, etc... and the supply dries up.

Once that happens the guns the criminals use become more expensive as well so you'll see a drop in crime. Simple supply and demand. No lie there shitbrains.

Additionally, there will be fewer guns in circulation due to the increased costs and the logical decisions people will make to simply not buy what they do not need.
Again,simple logic. No lie there shitbrains.

Will it stop all gun crime? No. Nothing will. However, the supply becomes less and less as crimes are committed and the police begin confiscating the guns that are used in the crime and tough mandatory sentences are handed down to those who use/brandish a weapon to commit a crime. Again...no lie there--it happens all the time.

If you want to save up for a gun, you can...nobody is infringing on anything except your whiny ass.

The supply of guns will shift over time to responsible gun owners who take the responsibility seriously.

Gun manufacturers are not the government. Plus, if all of them decided to jack their prices up above market value new companies would spring up to make them at the old price. Manufacturing guns isn't exactly rocket science.

All of which you propose is actions by the government to inhibit, i.e. infringe on the ability of people to own firearms, and is thus unconstitutional.

Also, as I save up for a gun, will the government provide me with 24/7 protection while I save up to exercise my rights? Again this isn't a cost mandated by the actual value of the item, its an artificial cost created by the government to stop me from getting a firearm.

If you make legal guns too expensive, people will form up operations to MAKE illegal ones.

All your points are the same tired gun control crap we have heard before, and easily refuted.

 

[martybegan]

What we need to be looking at is HOW are these illegal guns making it to the black market, for the criminals to buy....? I don't think they are making it there 1 by 1, but in crap loads at a time....so who is supplying the black market?

Why is it so loosey goosey???

Gun shows where nobody asks questions. Its a loophole brought to you by the NRA and their partners in mayhem; their members.

How many guns used in crimes can be traced to gun shows?

 

[Little-Acorn]

What we need to be looking at is HOW are these illegal guns making it to the black market, for the criminals to buy....? I don't think they are making it there 1 by 1, but in crap loads at a time....so who is supplying the black market?

Why is it so loosey goosey???

Open borders is one way and not enforcing laws already on the books is in the equation.

G.W. Bush started a program called "Fast & Furious", where he packed a gun dealer with ATF agents, let a drug cartel suspect walk in and buy a bunch of guns, then as soon as he tried to leave, jump on him and arrest him, getting back the guns.

When Obama got hold of it, he removed the "jump on him and arrest him" part. Now cartel members by the score, bought literally thousands of guns illegally at American gun stores and vanished into Mexico with them. The Obamanites had some vague idea that they would find who in Mexico ultimately wound up with the guns, and arrest THEM.

What actually happened was, they lost all track of the guns and had no clue. Occasionally they would be found at a murder scene, such as when a U.S. Border Patrol agent was found murdered with one of them. No useful arrests of cartel leaders, were ever made.

Have Obama and his sycophants ever laid hands on ANY government program, without screwing it up and causing disasters?

 

[Meister]

What we need to be looking at is HOW are these illegal guns making it to the black market, for the criminals to buy....? I don't think they are making it there 1 by 1, but in crap loads at a time....so who is supplying the black market?

Why is it so loosey goosey???

Gun shows where nobody asks questions. Its a loophole brought to you by the NRA and their partners in mayhem; their members.

Actually, in most gun shows well over half of the sellers are licensed and do all the background checks.
It's the occasional seller at the shows who aren't required by law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why are cause and correlation too difficult concepts for those who defend the NRA? It's not the number of guns in circulation or the number of people who own them that determines the number of mass murders.

The issue is who owns the gun and what type of gun are they allowed to own or have in their custody and control. What size of magazine, what rate of fire, time to reload and type of ammunition. All of these can and IMO should be controlled by the State and or local jurisdiction.

Anyone who thinks their personal armory can stand up to the United States Military, the ATF&E, FBI or local SWAT, etc. is a suicide waiting to happen.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why are cause and correlation too difficult concepts for those who defend the NRA? It's not the number of guns in circulation or the number of people who own them that determines the number of mass murders.

Then why the constant whines from liberal gun-haters, who sob that "we have to reduce the number of guns on the street"?

These silly people are getting to where they can't make ANY argument without defeating themselves.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/23/opinion/la-oe-winkler-gun-control-open-carry-20140223
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/i...ry-could-lead-to-more-guns-on-the-street.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/global_crime_report/crime/tradingguns1.shtml

 

[martybegan]

Why are cause and correlation too difficult concepts for those who defend the NRA? It's not the number of guns in circulation or the number of people who own them that determines the number of mass murders.

The issue is who owns the gun and what type of gun are they allowed to own or have in their custody and control. What size of magazine, what rate of fire, time to reload and type of ammunition. All of these can and IMO should be controlled by the State and or local jurisdiction.

Anyone who thinks their personal armory can stand up to the United States Military, the ATF&E, FBI or local SWAT, etc. is a suicide waiting to happen.

Holy crap are you all over the map with this one.

States are incorporated to follow the 2nd amendment via the 14th amendment. Localities only have the home rule allowed to them by the state constitutions, which also must follow the 2nd amendment via the 14th amendment.

The only thing that matters in most of these massacres is the will of the nutter doing the crime. Lanza could have been armed with a smoothbore musket, and killed just as many of the kids by clubbing them to death in the time it took an armed response to show up.

And we don't need to stand up to anyone. what we need to be is well armed enough to make any would be tyrant think twice before even starting the process of taking over.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why are cause and correlation too difficult concepts for those who defend the NRA? It's not the number of guns in circulation or the number of people who own them that determines the number of mass murders.

The issue is who owns the gun and what type of gun are they allowed to own or have in their custody and control. What size of magazine, what rate of fire, time to reload and type of ammunition. All of these can and IMO should be controlled by the State and or local jurisdiction.

Anyone who thinks their personal armory can stand up to the United States Military, the ATF&E, FBI or local SWAT, etc. is a suicide waiting to happen.

Holy crap are you all over the map with this one.

States are incorporated to follow the 2nd amendment via the 14th amendment. Localities only have the home rule allowed to them by the state constitutions, which also must follow the 2nd amendment via the 14th amendment.

The only thing that matters in most of these massacres is the will of the nutter doing the crime. Lanza could have been armed with a smoothbore musket, and killed just as many of the kids by clubbing them to death in the time it took an armed response to show up.

And we don't need to stand up to anyone. what we need to be is well armed enough to make any would be tyrant think twice before even starting the process of taking over.

You really can't read and comprehend, stifled as you are by your own myopic biases. What part of "all of these can and IMO should be controlled by the State and or local jurisdiction"? They could be if the Supreme Court had voted 5-4 against Heller, OR if a future Supreme Court has the common sense to allow for rational gun control.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why are cause and correlation too difficult concepts for those who defend the NRA? It's not the number of guns in circulation or the number of people who own them that determines the number of mass murders.

Then why the constant whines from liberal gun-haters, who sob that "we have to reduce the number of guns on the street"?

These silly people are getting to where they can't make ANY argument without defeating themselves.

Want fewer guns on California streets? Open carry may be the answer. - Los Angeles Times
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/i...ry-could-lead-to-more-guns-on-the-street.html
Global Crime Report | CRIME | Trading guns on America's streets part 1 | BBC World Service

Your problem is you can't separate some from all. You may read one or two posts from people who want to ban all guns, or take other extreme measure to control the flood of guns to those who should not own, possess or have them in their custody or control.

Rational people understand some of our countrymen should not ever have guns in their custody or control; the NRA and its followers hold to the proposition that no solution exists so the more people with guns the less likely there will be carnage.

We saw the fallacy of that argument last week in the Wal-Mart store.

IMO anyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm should be licensed, and anyone with a conviction for a violent misdemeanor or any violent felony should never have a gun in their possession. Local communities ought to have the authority to restrict the type of firearms legal within it jurisdiction and to suspend any license when a licensee is arrested for any drug or alcohol offense or detained as a danger to themselves or others.

 

[daveman]

How do we get guns away from criminals?
What's the plan?
Step by step, please.

First we ban them. Then we require that you turn them in. Then we shoot anyone with a gun who isn't in uniform dead if they show up with one.

For those who hole up in their homes with their armory we have a special treat, you and your entire family get to meet Jesus as we bulldoze the place flat.

Well, aren't you a fun-filled little fascist.

 

[daveman]

So if a law doesn't stop something 100% then its not worth having?

The point being we already have gun laws, just as we have rape, kiddie porn and child abuse laws. As has already been noted, only a total confiscation of guns would diminish these attacks and, as also noted, that's just not gonna happen.

The point is, we don't have the right gun laws.

Oh, so YOU'RE the guy who knows how to get criminals to obey the law.

 

[daveman]

From a liberal perspective: There are restrictions on other constitutional rights, such as free speech. Why can't there be similar restrictions on the types of guns available?

Honestly, until something happens and a case that directly covers this is taken to the Supreme Court, I'm not sure anything will change. Court cases that guns-rights activists use as support are also used by gun-control activists.

It's not a "liberal perspective," it's a fact of Constitutional law, all rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, including the Second Amendment right.

You mean like abortion?

That's different. Somehow. It just is. /progressive

 

[daveman]

Still no one has even tried to refute the point of the thread.

The only law that can have any effect on the number of guns criminals can get, is a total ban on all guns, followed by forcible confiscation of the guns people already have.

And even that will only have as much effect, as the total ban on cocaine we have had in place for decades. How hard is cocaine for criminals to get now?

The leftists know this, of course. And so they only put in place very small, partial bans, such as "longer wait times"" or "registration" or "insurance", and hope that the frog in the kettle won't notice that the water's getting warm.

Total ban and confiscation is impractical and possibly illegal. In any event, no one is proposing it. What is being proposed are better background checks, national registration and limited controls on ammunition. The goal is not perfection. The goal is a modest but real reduction in needless slaughter and the beginning of a slowly developing evolution in public consciousness about the role of firearms in our society.

It's how the brain-dead try to win arguments, they make your position out to be unreasonable and demand all or nothing results from what you've come up with. Anything short of that is a failure.

Really, what we should do is basically treat them like we did cigarettes and place giant taxes on the sale. When the price gets too high, the demand dries up, gun companies stop making/importing guns and you have at least cut off the influx. After that, as gun crimes are committed, you confiscate the weapons from the criminals and you begin to cut the supply. You couple that with sentences that work--20 to 30 years if you use or brandish a firearm during a crime; no parole. It will take quite a long time but what you'll end up with is three things:

Guns being so expensive due to lack of supply that the firearms the gun nuts swear you can buy on any street corner (funny how I never see any of these corners) become cost prohibitive. So you have less gun violence.

Guns that would have been sold to law abiding folks who wanted them for protection are not sold so they are not stolen/used by others for commission of crimes

Guns that are bought and used by responsible people for punching paper or hunting or sports shooting or self defense stay in the hands of the responsible people who take gun ownership seriously.

It would just take common sense to implement these steps tomorrow but since the NRA is involved and 200+ old dogma is still believed by 1/2 the population (roughly the same half that believes that some dude sitting on a cloud controls their destiny); there is no chance we will act like grown-ups.

You can have and express your opinion, but the government will charge you $1,000 per post on the internet.

 

[beagle9]

A total ban of fire arms is impossible.

Not only impossible, but very deadly if tried or attempted I think. The good citizens who have owned guns responsibly for centuries here, would rebel instantly if even a hint were to come out that this would be a certain thing in which were to be attempted. Weapons in the hands of good people are no harm or threat at all to any one, except for very bad people with intent to do bad things. Now everyone knows right now, that there is no way that the police can police every where in which they need too, nor at any given time can they know where to be or what to do prior as is proven, so guns are a preferred choice for many as to how they choose to protect themselves, and to do it in that space of time where as the cops are on the way but not at all there yet.

Now if there is a plan for everyone to be assigned eventually a police person to live with them on their property, and to live there with the sole purpose of protecting them and their family or friends, then lets figure out how much that will cost and do that next. Now if that isn't going to happen, then people are going to always choose their preferred method of protection, and most likely it will be a gun in which will be their choice. It should be the good citizens right to defend themselves, and the bad guy's should be put on alert that they (the good guy's) will do what it takes in a skinny minute if they have too.

The problem with all of this mess now, is that we as America, are pushing unsavory characters closer and closer together in life, and as this happens the tensions rise between the good and the bad, therefore eventually leading to bad things as a result of it all. The main thing is being willing to defend yourself when you have to, because all you will have is a split second to do so when things go very badly in a situation, and this is where self defense has got to be used in some of these situations in order to survive.

The problem these days, is that the feds have muddied the waters in the pond badly, and they expect the fish to just bump and grind together without incident, but that is a fairy tale and they know it, because as cultures clash in the bad verses good scenario's, then the feds try and control the outcomes, but I say look at Vietnam and our abandoning those people like we did, then Iraq and Afghanistan right now. How successful have we been or were we in those theaters, and what would you call the outcomes now of those wishes gone wrong to this very day in those theaters ?

 

[candycorn]

Taxing them for the sake of making it harder for a law abiding citizen to own them is infringement. Again, repeal the 2nd if you want to do that.

And considering I can go to a local bodega and buy smokes (if I wanted to not a smoker) that doesn't have the tax sticker attached, how hard do you think it would be to avoid the gun tax? About as hard as criminals find it to avoid background checks and such.

You keep saying you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and nutters, but all your proposals involve making it harder for the very law abiding citizens grabbers claim they don't want to impact.

Lies on top of lies, and you wonder why RKBA proponents don't trust gun control supporters?

Your opinions are useless; none of what you said is true. "Infringement" could be argued if the gun companies are charging any price at all so it becomes an argument of degrees of what is standard and customary and what is not.... Now that we have weekly massacres and you support the right to massacre, I doubt jurists would continue to see the logic in maintaining the status quo.

As for the bodega...yeah...whatever...

You increase the costs of gun ownership through taxes, bonds/insurance, permit fees, etc... and the supply dries up.

Once that happens the guns the criminals use become more expensive as well so you'll see a drop in crime. Simple supply and demand. No lie there shitbrains.

Additionally, there will be fewer guns in circulation due to the increased costs and the logical decisions people will make to simply not buy what they do not need.
Again,simple logic. No lie there shitbrains.

Will it stop all gun crime? No. Nothing will. However, the supply becomes less and less as crimes are committed and the police begin confiscating the guns that are used in the crime and tough mandatory sentences are handed down to those who use/brandish a weapon to commit a crime. Again...no lie there--it happens all the time.

If you want to save up for a gun, you can...nobody is infringing on anything except your whiny ass.

The supply of guns will shift over time to responsible gun owners who take the responsibility seriously.

Gun manufacturers are not the government. Plus, if all of them decided to jack their prices up above market value new companies would spring up to make them at the old price. Manufacturing guns isn't exactly rocket science.

All of which you propose is actions by the government to inhibit, i.e. infringe on the ability of people to own firearms, and is thus unconstitutional.
[/quotes]
Bingo. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional. Given that we are no longer in the horse and buggy days and the weekly massacres get more and more violent...it's doubtful jurists will continue to simply sit on the sideline and ignore thousands of needless deaths.

Also, as I save up for a gun, will the government provide me with 24/7 protection while I save up to exercise my rights? Again this isn't a cost mandated by the actual value of the item, its an artificial cost created by the government to stop me from getting a firearm.

If you can't afford a gun today, no such extra protection exists...stop being stupid.

If you make legal guns too expensive, people will form up operations to MAKE illegal ones.

Again, stop being stupid. We have a nurse who is a gun nut. She obeys the traffic laws, doesn't steal cable, picks up after her dog, pays her auto liability insurance. If a gun costs 500 instead of 300 dollars, she's not going to turn to a life of crime to buy a weapon.

All your points are the same tired gun control crap we have heard before, and easily refuted.

You haven't refuted anything. You and all other gun nuts (most anyway) simply make lame excuses on why humans can't solve problems created by humans. Not surprisingly, it's illogical.

 

[candycorn]

What we need to be looking at is HOW are these illegal guns making it to the black market, for the criminals to buy....? I don't think they are making it there 1 by 1, but in crap loads at a time....so who is supplying the black market?

Why is it so loosey goosey???

Gun shows where nobody asks questions. Its a loophole brought to you by the NRA and their partners in mayhem; their members.

Actually, in most gun shows well over half of the sellers are licensed and do all the background checks.
It's the occasional seller at the shows who aren't required by law.

Of course, CNN just happened upon the one gun show ever that didn't ask for any information what so ever.

Notice what state they were in?

 

[candycorn]

What we need to be looking at is HOW are these illegal guns making it to the black market, for the criminals to buy....? I don't think they are making it there 1 by 1, but in crap loads at a time....so who is supplying the black market?

Why is it so loosey goosey???

Gun shows where nobody asks questions. Its a loophole brought to you by the NRA and their partners in mayhem; their members.

How many guns used in crimes can be traced to gun shows?

Hmmm...interesting question.



Since nobody is asking for information or even first names, ID's, much less doing background checks to see if you're selling to Osama Bin Laden's bodyguards.... We never will know.

The video proves it.

 

[beagle9]

Gun shows where nobody asks questions. Its a loophole brought to you by the NRA and their partners in mayhem; their members.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A51Gr0zpX_c

How many guns used in crimes can be traced to gun shows?

Hmmm...interesting question.



Since nobody is asking for information or even first names, ID's, much less doing background checks to see if you're selling to Osama Bin Laden's bodyguards.... We never will know.

The video proves it.

Anywhere like gun shows, where irresponsible acts are committed in the sell of weapons, I'd say just stiffen the penalties and then enforce them big time. Many bad things are going on in this nation, and they are going on because we don't have the will or the enforcement arm in which is needed to combat these problems like we should, so why is that maybe ? I am totally against any irresponsible bull crap when it comes to something like this, and especially if people get dead after such acts take place. On one hand people want an individual to show a photo ID to vote, but on the other one can buy a gun without proving a number of things that is needed to keep the nation safe from the bad guy's ? Go figure! So it is that people fear a vote more than they fear a gun in the wrong hands these days ? wow!

I think both do have damaging affects, so lets fix both of these problems I'd say. No photo ID in the case of voting, no background check in the case of guns, then all services will be denied. Period!

 

[Politico]

First we ban them. Then we require that you turn them in. Then we shoot anyone with a gun who isn't in uniform dead if they show up with one.

For those who hole up in their homes with their armory we have a special treat, you and your entire family get to meet Jesus as we bulldoze the place flat.

You are really a nutbag. But I imagine that is why you are pink.

Are you against laws that outlaw rape, kiddie porn and child abuse?

It doesn't stop that either which is exactly the point.

So if a law doesn't stop something 100% then its not worth having?

You Leftytoons just reset like a CD left on autoplay.

 

[Meister]

Fewer unregistered guns in the general population. More direct responsibility of where each gun is and who owns it. Plus stronger penalties for non-compliance will make access to firearms for those who don't follow the process more difficult and thus less gun deaths will hopefully result.

Will this stop the gun black market? Do drug laws stop drug usage?
Do kids quit finding ways to get alcohol even though law says theyare too young? Do murder laws stop murder?

Are you against laws that outlaw rape, kiddie porn and child abuse?

How do those laws PREVENT the crimes in which you speak?
Do you arrest the person before he/she can commit the crime?
Now start connecting the dots