• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AND YOU WANT MY GUNS???

D

Daddyo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
11,506
Reaction score
5,107
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You liberals want our guns. You suggest more and tougher gun laws. Laws that impede or restrict law abiding citizens while doing little or nothing to stop the criminal, who by definition don't follow law. You tout domestic violence murder as your prime example in many posts.

Pro gun folks OTOH, understanding that criminals just don't follow laws hence the title criminal, advocate for tougher punishment of the thousands of existing laws as well as the personal responsibility of one's own defense AKA the "good guy with a gun" strategy. We also question the underlying intent of our liberal anti gun opponents. The spoken intent being the reduction in gun violence. A great intent even from our perspective. Unfortunately pro gun advocates suspect another more sinister anti American anti constitutional goal to eliminate the 2nd amendment and disarm the American people. Here is why we feel this way........ If the reduction of gun violence is the goal as openly stated by antigunners why on earth do they not enforce existing gun law to the fullest? Why do they not enforce all violent crime to the fullest knowing that most criminals who use guns in violent acts, are recidivists and should have been in prison for earlier crimes.

A recent tragedy being a prime example of my claim. This tragedy didn't involve firearms but it still serves as a perfect example of what pro gun folks are speaking about.

Darrell Brooks drove into a parade of innocent Americans and mowed down 6 fatally including a child. Brooks didn't use a gun but the dead are just as dead. Brooks was a recidivist. Brooks should have been in prison. Brooks was a domestic abuser. He was charged with a felony count of shooting at family members. He was a sex offender.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/8717524002


He was allowed to remain on the streets by the very people who claim to want to reduce gun crime by taking our guns. It was your liberal policy and your liberal comrades who allowed this. Allowing people like this to continue to prey on innocent civilians by not enforcing existing laws to the fullest. It wasn't a gun this time but this is precisely how we have gotten to the high level of gun violence in this country and its all because of liberal policy.
 
Daddyo said:
You liberals want our guns. You suggest more and tougher gun laws. Laws that impede or restrict law abiding citizens while doing little or nothing to stop the criminal, who by definition don't follow law. You tout domestic violence murder as your prime example in many posts.

Pro gun folks OTOH, understanding that criminals just don't follow laws hence the title criminal, advocate for tougher punishment of the thousands of existing laws as well as the personal responsibility of one's own defense AKA the "good guy with a gun" strategy. We also question the underlying intent of our liberal anti gun opponents. The spoken intent being the reduction in gun violence. A great intent even from our perspective. Unfortunately pro gun advocates suspect another more sinister anti American anti constitutional goal to eliminate the 2nd amendment and disarm the American people. Here is why we feel this way........ If the reduction of gun violence is the goal as openly stated by antigunners why on earth do they not enforce existing gun law to the fullest? Why do they not enforce all violent crime to the fullest knowing that most criminals who use guns in violent acts, are recidivists and should have been in prison for earlier crimes.

A recent tragedy being a prime example of my claim. This tragedy didn't involve firearms but it still serves as a perfect example of what pro gun folks are speaking about.

Darrell Brooks drove into a parade of innocent Americans and mowed down 6 fatally including a child. Brooks didn't use a gun but the dead are just as dead. Brooks was a recidivist. Brooks should have been in prison. Brooks was a domestic abuser. He was charged with a felony count of shooting at family members. He was a sex offender.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/8717524002


He was allowed to remain on the streets by the very people who claim to want to reduce gun crime by taking our guns. It was your liberal policy and your liberal comrades who allowed this. Allowing people like this to continue to prey on innocent civilians by not enforcing existing laws to the fullest. It wasn't a gun this time but this is precisely how we have gotten to the high level of gun violence in this country and its all because of liberal policy.
Click to expand...


Why do we have ANY guns laws at all? Why not allow anyone to buy and sell guns?
 
jotathought said:
It's kind of like drugs .. would it solve problems or create more problems?
Click to expand...

Do we have problems with guns today with existing laws? Do you favor just "some" gun laws?
 
Daddyo said:
You liberals want our guns. You suggest more and tougher gun laws. Laws that impede or restrict law abiding citizens while doing little or nothing to stop the criminal, who by definition don't follow law. You tout domestic violence murder as your prime example in many posts.

Pro gun folks OTOH, understanding that criminals just don't follow laws hence the title criminal, advocate for tougher punishment of the thousands of existing laws as well as the personal responsibility of one's own defense AKA the "good guy with a gun" strategy. We also question the underlying intent of our liberal anti gun opponents. The spoken intent being the reduction in gun violence. A great intent even from our perspective. Unfortunately pro gun advocates suspect another more sinister anti American anti constitutional goal to eliminate the 2nd amendment and disarm the American people. Here is why we feel this way........ If the reduction of gun violence is the goal as openly stated by antigunners why on earth do they not enforce existing gun law to the fullest? Why do they not enforce all violent crime to the fullest knowing that most criminals who use guns in violent acts, are recidivists and should have been in prison for earlier crimes.

A recent tragedy being a prime example of my claim. This tragedy didn't involve firearms but it still serves as a perfect example of what pro gun folks are speaking about.

Darrell Brooks drove into a parade of innocent Americans and mowed down 6 fatally including a child. Brooks didn't use a gun but the dead are just as dead. Brooks was a recidivist. Brooks should have been in prison. Brooks was a domestic abuser. He was charged with a felony count of shooting at family members. He was a sex offender.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/8717524002


He was allowed to remain on the streets by the very people who claim to want to reduce gun crime by taking our guns. It was your liberal policy and your liberal comrades who allowed this. Allowing people like this to continue to prey on innocent civilians by not enforcing existing laws to the fullest. It wasn't a gun this time but this is precisely how we have gotten to the high level of gun violence in this country and its all because of liberal policy.
Click to expand...
No problem with you having your guns, but when people start opposing background checks and other common sense measures (one might use the phrase “well regulated”) that make it harder for violent offenders and the mentally ill to acquire guns that’s when I’ll happily stand with liberals and declare such opposition completely nuts.
 
NatMorton said:
No problem with you having your guns, but when people start opposing background checks and other common sense measures (one might use the phrase “well regulated”) that make it harder for violent offenders and the mentally ill to acquire guns that’s when I’ll happily stand with liberals and declare such opposition completely nuts.
Click to expand...

The only way to know who has “acquired” a gun is by having (and enforcing) gun registration. Pretending that universal BGCs could be implemented (and actually enforced) without universal gun registration is BS. As long as illegal gun possession by a ‘prohibited person’ is treated much the same as illegal drug possession (a wrist slap ‘non-violent’ offense, at best) then nothing will change.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The only way to know who has “acquired” a gun is by having (and enforcing) gun registration. Pretending that universal BGCs could be implemented (and actually enforced) without universal gun registration is BS. As long as illegal gun possession by a ‘prohibited person’ is treated much the same as illegal drug possession (a wrist slap ‘non-violent’ offense, at best) then nothing will change.
Click to expand...

If SELLERS know that THEY could face prosecution we would remove a primary source for guns in the hands of the prohibited.
 
BlueTex said:
Do we have problems with guns today with existing laws? Do you favor just "some" gun laws?
Click to expand...
With all the squawking we hear from those on the left .. they seem to feel there is a problem, although I personally feel we need less restrictive measures like we used to have ..

I sent a firearm through the postal service across the United States one time .. today, you'd probably get crucified for taking a firearm in the post office.
 
BlueTex said:
If SELLERS know that THEY could face prosecution we would remove a primary source for guns in the hands of the prohibited.
Click to expand...

Yep, and the only way to that would require universal gun registration. Trying to hold me responsible for a gun which I sold years or even decades ago would be ridiculous. Most (but not all) of the guns I have owned were bought from FFL dealers and were later sold privately (with no paperwork whatsoever).

If a given gun was initially bought by person A (from a FFL dealer), (allegedly) re-sold to person B, (allegedly) re-sold to person C, (allegedly) re-sold to person D and eventually wound up in the hands of (prohibited) person Z - then holding person A responsible for person Z‘s illegal gun possession should be impossible.
 
Daddyo said:
You liberals want our guns. You suggest more and tougher gun laws. Laws that impede or restrict law abiding citizens while doing little or nothing to stop the criminal, who by definition don't follow law. You tout domestic violence murder as your prime example in many posts.

Pro gun folks OTOH, understanding that criminals just don't follow laws hence the title criminal, advocate for tougher punishment of the thousands of existing laws as well as the personal responsibility of one's own defense AKA the "good guy with a gun" strategy. We also question the underlying intent of our liberal anti gun opponents. The spoken intent being the reduction in gun violence. A great intent even from our perspective. Unfortunately pro gun advocates suspect another more sinister anti American anti constitutional goal to eliminate the 2nd amendment and disarm the American people. Here is why we feel this way........ If the reduction of gun violence is the goal as openly stated by antigunners why on earth do they not enforce existing gun law to the fullest? Why do they not enforce all violent crime to the fullest knowing that most criminals who use guns in violent acts, are recidivists and should have been in prison for earlier crimes.

A recent tragedy being a prime example of my claim. This tragedy didn't involve firearms but it still serves as a perfect example of what pro gun folks are speaking about.

Darrell Brooks drove into a parade of innocent Americans and mowed down 6 fatally including a child. Brooks didn't use a gun but the dead are just as dead. Brooks was a recidivist. Brooks should have been in prison. Brooks was a domestic abuser. He was charged with a felony count of shooting at family members. He was a sex offender.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/8717524002


He was allowed to remain on the streets by the very people who claim to want to reduce gun crime by taking our guns. It was your liberal policy and your liberal comrades who allowed this. Allowing people like this to continue to prey on innocent civilians by not enforcing existing laws to the fullest. It wasn't a gun this time but this is precisely how we have gotten to the high level of gun violence in this country and its all because of liberal policy.
Click to expand...

We have come to realize two truths.

1) There is no such thing as a responsible gun owner.
2) The only way to stop the slaughter is to have national laws to ban guns. Local laws and ordinances do nothing, as you indicate, as both criminal and "responsible" gun owners just go around local edicts.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, and the only way to that would require universal gun registration. Trying to hold me responsible for a gun which I sold years or even decades ago would be ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Why?

Where does your culpability end?
 
Daddyo said:
You liberals want our guns.
Click to expand...
I stopped reading here. If you want people to actually read and digest your polemics, may I suggest opening with something less inane? Sure, it has some middle school cachet but for adults it’s the forum equivalent of having a “kick me” sign taped to one’s back.
 
BlueTex said:
Do we have problems with guns today with existing laws?
Click to expand...

Yep, because most of them are simply not (or very selectively) being enforced.

BlueTex said:
Do you favor just "some" gun laws?
Click to expand...

Only those which are universally enforced. It is a felony to lie on form 4473, yet only a teeny, tiny percentage of those who did so are being prosecuted.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, and the only way to that would require universal gun registration. Trying to hold me responsible for a gun which I sold years or even decades ago would be ridiculous. Most (but not all) of the guns I have owned were bought from FFL dealers and were later sold privately (with no paperwork whatsoever).

If a given gun was initially bought by person A (from a FFL dealer), (allegedly) re-sold to person B, (allegedly) re-sold to person C, (allegedly) re-sold to person D and eventually wound up in the hands of (prohibited) person Z - then holding person A responsible for person Z‘s illegal gun possession should be impossible.
Click to expand...

No question universal registration would make it much more effective.
 
noonereal said:
We have come to realize two truths.

1) There is no such thing as a responsible gun owner.
2) The only way to stop the slaughter is to have national laws to ban guns. Local laws and ordinances do nothing, as you indicate, as both criminal and "responsible" gun owners just go around local edicts.
Click to expand...

Step one to implement a national gun ban would be to repeal the 2A. Even “Beto” does not see that as a possibility, much less a probability. Even when we had an ‘assault weapon’ ban, many millions of them remained legally owned and/or possessed.

BTW, how effective is the (decades old) nationwide ban on marijuana, meth, cocaine or heroin?
 
BlueTex said:
No question universal registration would make it much more effective.
Click to expand...

You can’t require criminals (or other prohibited persons) to register their gun(s).

BTW, it is already illegal (at the federal and state level) for a ‘prohibited person’ to possess any gun. Of course, strictly enforcing that law would very likely have a ‘disparate impact’ and thus be called racist by the usual (leftist?) loons.
 
NatMorton said:
So conservatives, you’re for voter IDs (and you should be) but not for verifying identification when purchasing a gun?
Click to expand...

Weird.. They seem to also support strict voter registration requirements..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom