Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A point that is lost on so many liberals is that in principle gun control and tough on crime are mutually-reinforcing: fewer guns on the street mean even criminals have less access to them on average, and cracking down on crime means fewer citizens feel they need guns for self-defense.

Gun rights are to deter fascists and prevent control freaks from any ideas.

Fascists and control freaks are the first ones to load up on guns.

Were our founders fascists and control freaks?

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785


To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788



"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The reason why gun control will never happen is stated above. Every law abiding gun owner knows they are judged as criminal because our founders gave America the 2nd Amendment, and we dare exercise our constitutional right to own guns.

We know that the powerful politicians who want to enact gun control upon us are protected by men armed with fully automatic weapons and those men are specifically and extensively trained to use those fully automatic weapons with violence against a person who would hurt that powerful politician and their family. Those powerful politicians will not give up their right to be protected by guns, but we must give up our right to protect ourselves with guns?

I don’t ever see posters attack and malign actual criminals who have committed crimes with guns and killed innocent people with guns as viciously as they attack and malign American citizens who are legally armed and responsibly armed and merely exercising their rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

That’s because the problem isn’t really about gun crime and the death of innocent people. The problem is democrats (a majority) don’t like guns, don’t want Americans to own guns, and want to take away the ability of American citizens to own guns.

How about this: if you use a gun in a rape, theft, or murder, you are executed the same day you are convicted of the rape, theft, or murder.

If you steal a gun, and you are convicted of the theft of that gun, the gun owner or the court will execute you with that gun.

You want to actually change human behavior and criminal behavior, give criminals a reason to be terrified to be convicted of using a gun to commit a crime or to steal a gun.

Instead of fantasizing about using Bradleys and “attack” helicopters on normal Americans, use capital punishment on criminals who are engaging in gun crime. Don’t say it’s cruel or unusual punishment to do so, because you openly admit to wanting the American military to kill law abiding citizens just because they own guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A point that is lost on so many liberals is that in principle gun control and tough on crime are mutually-reinforcing: fewer guns on the street mean even criminals have less access to them on average, and cracking down on crime means fewer citizens feel they need guns for self-defense.

Gun rights are to deter fascists and prevent control freaks from any ideas.

Fascists and control freaks are the first ones to load up on guns.

Gun ownership is a right. It’s there to empower fascists, communists and control freaks. Driving is a privilege.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA cultists spend a month ginning up conspiracies about Travis Kelce, and it's not surprising that violence would erupt.

Good grief.
Give it a f'ing rest.

Democrats will try to put President Trump on trial for that too!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not require a test, a license and a waiting period to get a gun? Require at least the same degree of bureaucracy that is needed to get a drivers license.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Regulation is right there in the Amendment.

Did you see the footage of the gun loving Missouri governor running away like a little girl?

So should we allow mentally ill individuals to own guns? How do we restrict their access to guns under the second amendment? Or do you think they should be able to have them, no questions asked?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A point that is lost on so many liberals is that in principle gun control and tough on crime are mutually-reinforcing: fewer guns on the street mean even criminals have less access to them on average, and cracking down on crime means fewer citizens feel they need guns for self-defense.

Gun rights are to deter fascists and prevent control freaks from any ideas.

AR-15s don't work against drones, Bradleys, attack helicopters etc.

Obligatory:

Life is absolutely miserable for the Taliban. Why would you want to volunteer for that sort of life rather than work towards actual problem solving, democracy and peace?

This word- this isn’t a word we hear anymore- PEACE. We live in a country that is turning into a war zone over nothing. I want to live in PEACE, we all deserve to live in PEACE. We deserve to go to church, school, movies, and parades without a threat to our lives. Instead of focusing on bad guys and good guys, let’s talk about PEACE. How do we get that? Is it by having everyone armed to the teeth? Unlikely. I don’t want shootouts at Wal Mart even if the “good guys” win- I want PEACE.

What country in the world has PEACE?

Most Europeans aren't afraid that they're risking their lives by going to school, church, the grocery store, a race, the movies, or a parade. New Zealand had the decency to tighten gun laws after mass shootings because they saw it a health issue and not a political one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little confused at why this is in the politics forum.

Because the solution to this problem is political. And the shooters were very likely ginned up by politicos and charlatans exercising rightwing conspiracy speech.

Or people could not shoot other people.

Nobody has to shoot up a crowd of innocent people. Individuals can choose to follow laws and not harm other people. That’s a great solution: don’t harm other people.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

So your position is that people are always going to harm/kill other people? Humans don’t have the capacity to stop themselves from shooting other innocent people?

I don’t shoot innocent people, do you?

I don’t have the slightest desire to shoot anyone.

Sure. What’s your solution for making sure people who DO want to shoot someone don’t get their hands on weapons?

We have many laws to prevent that; people don’t follow those laws.

What’s your solution to stop people who don’t follow our laws?

There are many more laws and actions that could stem the contagion. But then again, the GOP doesn't care about sch things on any level. They want the chaos, no matter the price.

We have laws against rape, murder, theft, kidnapping, child abuse, assault, etc, and those crimes are committed every day. The GOP doesn’t make people break the law.

Imagine that certain companies sold devices that helped you rape more people or kidnap more people. Now imagine that organizations dedicated to maximizing the profits of these companies directed so much money to GOP elected officials that any legislation meant to decrease the number of rapes and kidnappings caused by these devices was completely out of the question, despite the fact that a majority of voters favor such legislation.

Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, but it also has one of the highest murder rates. This is because criminals don’t obey the law, and therefore gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens who are left helpless to defend themselves.

Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. Your argument is not based in reality. Guns are not tools of rape or murder, they are not evil or harmful. They don’t fire themselves at innocent people. They don’t kill innocent people or don’t hurt anyone, at all. You could be locked in a room with hundreds of handguns and AR15s and thousands of rounds of ammo and you would not be harmed by a single gun. It’s criminals who use guns against already existing laws that kill people, shoot people, harm people. Being hysterically opposed to guns because they are guns is not rational.

The 14th amendment says that all people are to be treated equally under the law. Under the “individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

So even though you think gun are “tools” to kill people, and the solution is to pass laws to restrict the right of people to own guns, it’s not possible.

Umm..they are tools--very, very effective ones.

So you keep your gun and your hammer in the same drawer? You have a box in your garage that contains screwdrivers, wrenches, measuring tape, and handguns?

The gun cost quite a bit more. It has its own special drawer.

Anonymous wrote:Why not require a test, a license and a waiting period to get a gun? Require at least the same degree of bureaucracy that is needed to get a drivers license.

Again, the requirement for a driver's license is an undue burden for many people. It would be inequitable to require this for driving, let alone a gun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not require a test, a license and a waiting period to get a gun? Require at least the same degree of bureaucracy that is needed to get a drivers license.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It doesn't say anything about unfettered access.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the presence of 800 LEOs ("good guys") isn't enough to deter gun crime, then we are truly living in a lawless time. Expecting "good guys" to bail us out each and every time is simply not realistic. Reducing the number of guns and making it harder to get them is what's needed.

I disagree.
Making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms will result in criminals being the ones with the weapons.
Law abiding citizens should be free to defend themselves and their loved ones.
After all, when seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The solution is getting criminals off the streets. Let's find out what the rap sheets are on these shooters.

INCORRECT. Every gun used by a criminal originally started out in the hands of a supposed "law abiding citizen." Every single one. That shows that there aren't enough controls on the supposed law-abiders. There are far too many people who can legally purchase guns skirting laws to funnel them to criminals, there are far too many irresponsible law abiding criminals who fail to secure their guns, who let friends and relatives with criminal records or criminal intent get guns through them and so on. The more checks, balances and controls in place, the harder it will be for criminals to get guns.

How are laws going to make it harder for criminals to get guns?

The issue: CRIMINALS DON’T ABIDE BY LAWS.

We have laws against murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, drunk driving: those crimes still happen EVERY DAY.


Laws don’t change criminal behavior; laws punish criminals who commit crimes.

I don’t rape people, steal, kill, etc, because I have no desire to do those things. I am not sitting at home thinking: “hmmmm, boy oh boy, I sure would like to go rape and murder some people. But gosh darn it! Those laws say I can’t! So now I can’t! Curse those laws from keeping me from doing evil! Oh well, guess I will go check out my tomato plants in the garden, instead.”

You are very confused. Nobody is saying that illegal guns = no more murder. We are saying that guns have a higher kill rate than other tools that murderers commonly use and therefor fewer guns in circulation = less death and innocent bystander carnage whenever thugs fight or whatever the actions of the criminal. This is not rocket science yet you guys can’t seem to comprehend the actual debate here.

So take guns away from the criminals, not law abiding citizens.

There can be 3 billion guns in circulation, lthe responsible and law abiding gun owners aren’t using guns to kill or harm anyone. They are already following the law.

Why are criminals using guns currently to do these things? There are already hundreds of laws that prohibit criminal behavior. Why will criminals follow the new laws you all want to pass?

At what point are you willfully ignoring the fact that criminals aren’t going to follow any law passed, so what is the real reason you want to take my guns?

So there are less guns which equals less opportunity to use them to kill people.
Less guns = less opportunity to use one to kill people. Simple. It's so simple.
My question to you is why do you think you need a gun? What are you so afraid of?

Anonymous wrote:Why not require a test, a license and a waiting period to get a gun? Require at least the same degree of bureaucracy that is needed to get a drivers license.

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

Anonymous wrote:Why not require a test, a license and a waiting period to get a gun? Require at least the same degree of bureaucracy that is needed to get a drivers license.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution