The Left's Solution To Gun Violence

[Rucker61]

I’m exposing yours. You don’t care about crime.

Should we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS to show we care about crime?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Should we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS to show we care about crime

At least you didn’t bother putting a question mark at the end of your propaganda.

Even you know it’s all bullshit. You have no right to mass slaughter machines. Not one.

 

[TurtleDude]

At least you didn’t bother putting a question mark at the end of your propaganda.

Even you know it’s all bullshit. You have no right to mass slaughter machines. Not one.

calling commonly owned (for over 100 years) firearms "mass slaughter machines" demonstrates your posts are nothing but trolling nonsense and you are not interested in actual discussion. The Supreme Court and the Constitution rejects your nonsense about our rights

 

[Aunt Antifa]

calling commonly owned (for over 100 years) firearms "mass slaughter machines" demonstrates your posts are nothing but trolling nonsense and you are not interested in actual discussion. The Supreme Court and the Constitution rejects your nonsense about our rights

The constitution gives you no unfettered freedom to own slaughter machines. None. zip.

How many times do you have to be owned on this subject? How many more?

 

[Rucker61]

At least you didn’t bother putting a question mark at the end of your propaganda.

Go back and check the edit?

Even you know it’s all bullshit. You have no right to mass slaughter machines. Not one.

What firearms and other weapons do you consider "mass slaughter machines"?

Going back to my previous question, we could likely shutdown the practice of chid porn if we allowed the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS. Should we allow the government to do so to combat child porn?

 

[Rucker61]

The constitution gives you no unfettered freedom to own slaughter machines. None. zip.

How many times do you have to be owned on this subject? How many more?

The Constitution doesn't give anyone any rights at all. It defines the powers of government.

How many times does this need to be explained?

Handguns are the most commonly used firearms in mass shootings. Both Heller and McDonald affirmed the right to own handguns.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Going back to my previous question, we could likely shutdown the practice of chid porn if we allowed the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS. Should we allow the government to do so to combat child porn?

I don’t accept your premise, so asking it in a “did you stop beating your wife” q format is stupid.

We already have fed regulations regarding child porn, so you are recommending federal regulation of guns then?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The Constitution doesn't give anyone any rights at all. It defines the powers of government.

How many times does this need to be explained?

Handguns are the most commonly used firearms in mass shootings. Both Heller and McDonald affirmed the right to own handguns.

You‘re so close.

 

[Rucker61]

I don’t accept your premise, so asking it in a “did you stop beating your wife” q format is stupid.

We already have fed regulations regarding child porn, so you are recommending federal regulation of guns then?

We have federal regulations of guns.

Child porn is absolutely forbidden to possess by federal law. Why do we still suffer from child porn?

 

[Rucker61]

You‘re so close.

And you're so far away.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

We have federal regulations of guns.

Child porn is absolutely forbidden to possess by federal law. Why do we still suffer from child porn?

We do not have a federal standard for gun control. Until that happens, there is no gun control.

What is your argument here? That laws do no good? I mean…you do see how if we want to extrapolate your take on access to guns and asking about child porn to mean you believe laws restricting child porn are unconstitutional and men should just have at it.

I mean, do you feel that way?

 

[Grand Mal]

do you oppose laws that prevent minors from being unable to buy or carry-without close supervision-firearms?

I don't oppose any American gun laws. For one thing, they don't affect me either way and for another they seem kind of useless anyway.
The question is, do you oppose laws that restrict minors? If self-defense is the purpose of the right to bear arms why is the right denied to those who need it most? If It's a matter of not trusting the judgement of anyone under 21, that seems like the 'broad brush' that gets cited so often in this discussion. Aren't you supposed to be trusted until you show you can't be?

 

[Grand Mal]

Blame rests with the Democrats on that one.

Everywhere? That's easy to say, but which law restricts minors?

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't oppose any American gun laws. For one thing, they don't affect me either way and for another they seem kind of useless anyway.
The question is, do you oppose laws that restrict minors? If self-defense is the purpose of the right to bear arms why is the right denied to those who need it most? If It's a matter of not trusting the judgement of anyone under 21, that seems like the 'broad brush' that gets cited so often in this discussion. Aren't you supposed to be trusted until you show you can't be?

Laws are about line drawing. I certainly trust some 17 year olds to

1) vote
2) marry
3) consume booze
4) carry firearms

than many 21-25 or 30 year olds I know. But that cannot work for a society. so line drawing has to be done where society determines that the those on one side of an age line, are not yet -on the whole-able to exercise certain rights responsibly. and we both know that society does not have the time or resources to evaluate-say every 16 year old-as to their suitability to own guns, start a family, vote, enter into contracts etc.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Those who are mentally ill are less violent than those who are not.

That largely depends on which mentally ill you are referring to. Its a given that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents over the last few decades that you libruls try to use to push gun bans, involved shooters with well known mental illness issues, Of course not all mentally ill individuals are violent. However almost all of those involved in mass shootings are.

 

[Rucker61]

We do not have a federal standard for gun control. Until that happens, there is no gun control.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "federal standard". We have plenty of gun control laws at the federal level, and they apply to the entire country.

What is your argument here? That laws do no good?

Laws don't actually prevent much, do they? We know that they can't prevent crime because every single law includes punishment for violating the crime. If the government could ignore the 4th Amendment, could they catch more criminals and make us safer?

Should we allow them to do so?

I mean…you do see how if we want to extrapolate your take on access to guns and asking about child porn to mean you believe laws restricting child porn are unconstitutional and men should just have at it.

Owning a gun is no more a crime than is owning a cell phone with a camera. It's how it's used. Nearly all of the time both are used lawfully. It's the unlawful uses we address with laws and punishment, not the possession and lawful uses of guns or cell phones with cameras.

I mean, do you feel that way?

Of course not. Thanks for asking.

 

[Rucker61]

Everywhere? That's easy to say, but which law restricts minors?

Which laws restrict minors from concealed carry? Your googlefu is as good as mine.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Chose not to demand them.

You chose not to operate in reality very much don't you?

 

[calamity]

That largely depends on which mentally ill you are referring to. Its a given that the vast majority of mass shooting incidents over the last few decades that you libruls try to use to push gun bans, involved shooters with well known mental illness issues, Of course not all mentally ill individuals are violent. However almost all of those involved in mass shootings are.

No, all mass shootings involved people with easy access to guns. Now that is truth.

 

[Grand Mal]

Laws are about line drawing. I certainly trust some 17 year olds to

1) vote
2) marry
3) consume booze
4) carry firearms

than many 21-25 or 30 year olds I know. But that cannot work for a society. so line drawing has to be done where society determines that the those on one side of an age line, are not yet -on the whole-able to exercise certain rights responsibly. and we both know that society does not have the time or resources to evaluate-say every 16 year old-as to their suitability to own guns, start a family, vote, enter into contracts etc.

So the obvious next step is to point out that lines are fine as long as you agree with where they're drawn. The right to bear arms is not 'virgo intacta', It's infringed several ways. Some people are deemed to not have that right and even the most vocal 2nd Amendment supporters won't call it an unconstitutional infringement. There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment about age or anything else.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "federal standard

A federal standard for gun ownership.

Laws don't actually prevent much, do they? We know that they can't prevent crime because every single law includes punishment for violating the crime.

Incorrect. We wouldn’t have been able to form a society if laws didn’t prevent a great deal of crime.

The idea that laws don’t prevent crimes is false, the argument that they need to prevent every single crime or they’ve failed is childish and unserious.

And if laws aren’t necessary, not sure why you keep pleading the constitutionality of things. We can just dispense with it.

 

[Grand Mal]

Which laws restrict minors from concealed carry? Your googlefu is as good as mine.

You said it was the fault of the Democrats. I thought you knew what you were talking about.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Why would you lock him up?

Far as I know, he didn't commit a crime up until the point he killed 9 people..

He was repeatedly accused of sexual assault / rape and his ex-wife reports multiple incidents of suicidal ideation when they were married.

A psych hold and evaluation would have been nice and had either an involuntary commitment or a judicial determination that he was a threat to himself been ordered, his right to own a gun would have disabled under 18 USC 922(g)(4).

Had the rape accusations been pursued and he was indicted, he would have lost his right to own a gun under 18 USC 922(g)(1), extended for life if he was convicted.

So, as usual we hear of incidents that would have extinguished his gun rights but nothing happened so he maintained his "law-abiding" status. This happens thousands of times a year from domestic homicides to criminals who have previos gun and even violent crimes that would get them banned for life when convicted, are plead down to crimes that do not impose any firearm prohibition.

.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

He was repeatedly accused of sexual assault / rape and his ex-wife reports multiple incidents of suicidal ideation when they were married.

Common among those accused of gun violence. It’s almost like allowing unfettered access to killing machines multiplies bad outcomes.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

In the recent mass shootings in Colorado Springs, Indianapolis, Boulder, Atlanta and now San Jose....how many shooters had been released from prison ?

Why did you leave out the Monarch nightclub shooting in Minneapolis and the New Jersey house party shooting?