Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Just take away the guns, do it now Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:25:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:

Also a dodge. Licenses tie the guns direct to the owners. They are revokable. Tell me if you're for or against.

Just give me a yes or no. The rest of the "no more laws" wiingeing is just bullshit.


You answer my question. If the existing laws do exactly what your new laws propose to do, why do w need the new ones?

Monocle
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:32:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
MrNudiePants wrote:


You answer my question. If the existing laws do exactly what your new laws propose to do, why do w need the new ones?


Dodge, dodge. I asked you simple questions first and you insist on not answering.

Th existing laws do not do what my two proposals do. A mandatory check would a) alert the seller if the buyer is misrepresenting himself. b) Alert the system who is attempting to buy a gun. The first could prevent a sale to someone who should not buy a gun. The second could prevent someone who shouldn't buy a gun from trying. It wouldn't stop all cases of course, but it would stop some - I'll wager a significant number.

A registration is attached to the gun owner, not the gun. Among other things, it pegs the responsibility for the gun on the owner.

You asked for a workable plan. I proposed two basic federal laws. Perhaps to replace a plethora of piecemeal laws. Perhaps to augment them.

If you can't answer a simple yes or no to the concept of background checks for all sales, and the concept of gun registrations for gun owners, then it's clear you have no interest in any kind of dialog at all.
LOVES4PLAY
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:43:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/14/2010
Posts: 944
Location: JUST A CLICK AWAY, United States
I purchased my first gun , 58 yrs ago..I love target shooting, hunting, & as of this date I've never shot any one...nor do I intend to..
I'm for fire arms registration,background checks...Sadly these laws will not prevent any one choosing to take a life, from doing so..
SWEDEN,may have- t-he- answer to gun control ..
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:24:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:


Dodge, dodge. I asked you simple questions first and you insist on not answering.

Th existing laws do not do what my two proposals do. A mandatory check would a) alert the seller if the buyer is misrepresenting himself. b) Alert the system who is attempting to buy a gun. The first could prevent a sale to someone who should not buy a gun. The second could prevent someone who shouldn't buy a gun from trying. It wouldn't stop all cases of course, but it would stop some - I'll wager a significant number.


It wouldn't stop ANYONE who really wants to obtain a firearm from getting one. All it would do is cost taxpayers a significant amount of money, and tie up government employees (including sworn peace officers), keeping them from actually enforcing the law and solving crimes. It's an absolutely ridiculous idea on the face of it. A complete waste. The way our system works now, any firearm dealer or owner who sells a firearm to a prohibited person goes to jail. It's self-regulating because no law-abiding person wants to go to jail, so it behooves them to assure themselves that the buyer isn't a prohibited person. There are some jurisdictions in the country now in which every firearm transfer has to go through a licensed dealer, and the purchaser has to undergo a background check. California is one of them. Do you for a moment think that criminals can't get firearms in California?

You're idea is ridiculous, obtuse, it flies in the face of actual empirical evidence. It's been proven that it doesn't work. Maybe you like having to give the government more of your money to throw away on nonsense ideas. I don't.



Monocle wrote:


A registration is attached to the gun owner, not the gun. Among other things, it pegs the responsibility for the gun on the owner.

You asked for a workable plan. I proposed two basic federal laws. Perhaps to replace a plethora of piecemeal laws. Perhaps to augment them.

If you can't answer a simple yes or no to the concept of background checks for all sales, and the concept of gun registrations for gun owners, then it's clear you have no interest in any kind of dialog at all.


When a person has his/her drivers' license revoked, does it automatically remove their ability to drive a motor vehicle? Of course not. I know personally a man that has had his drivers' license revoked forever. If he lives to be a hundred, he'll never have a drivers' license again, in any state in the Union. Do you think for a moment that it keeps him from driving?

Gun owners already do face the entire responsibility for the proper ownership of their firearms. In all jurisdictions that I'm aware of, if a prohibited person gains possession of a person's firearm, that person will be charged criminally. If a child, for instance, gets their parent's gun, the parent goes to jail. Adam Lanza's mother shirked her responsibility, and paid with her life. Adding an extra little slip of paper to the process won't prevent a thing. If there ever is any kind of gun-owner's registry instituted, a huge number of gun owners will simply refuse to register. If the law requires registration of the types of guns they own, those that do register will only list a tiny minority of their guns. Setting up the registry will cost millions of dollars and add multiple layers of government bureaucrats to already over-burdened infrastructures. It'll be entirely inaccurate, impossible to maintain, and take tax money away from necessary social programs that are already underfunded. The State of Illinois requires anyone who wants to purchase a firearm to apply for and obtain a Firearm Owners' Identification Card (FOID) before they can purchase any firearms. Want to bet there are more than a few criminals running around Chicago with firearms?

Ask our Canadian friends how many people lined up to have their firearms added to their country's registry, and how many people refused, and then tell me that you think this is actually a workable idea.

Both ideas of yours have been tried and found unworkable. They're both ridiculous, would be incredibly expensive, and wouldn't do shit to prevent crime or prevent prohibited persons from acquiring guns.

Monocle
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:43:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
Niether of those two basic ideas I've listed - and they certainly didn't originate with me - have been tried on the federal level. Your statements of multiple conjectures as facts without evidence are unhelpful and, frankly, typical.

I've got nothing for you. Mr. N/P. You're unreachable. I hope to defeat you at the ballot box.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 10:03:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:
Niether of those two basic ideas I've listed - and they certainly didn't originate with me - have been tried on the federal level. Your statements of multiple conjectures as facts without evidence are unhelpful and, frankly, typical.

I've got nothing for you. Mr. N/P. You're unreachable. I hope to defeat you at the ballot box.


Meh. They HAVE been tried. They don't work. One definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get different results each time. Those "ideas" qualify.

Monocle
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 10:20:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
They have not. A federal law requiring background checks on all firearm sales has not been implemented. Nationwide gun registration has not been implemented. To say "they don't work" is simply a made-up fact.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 10:22:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
It's okay. You can ignore actual facts, and call them "made-up". I won't stop you.

Dementorkissed
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 10:33:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/24/2012
Posts: 174
Location: United States
ByronLord wrote:
Yet another mass killing sponsored by your local NRA.

Guns kill more people in the US than cars do and they are much less used.


exactly like place a ban on drinking and people will stop drinking... and making drugs illegal and people will stop doing drugs.. :-)

we need to look for the root cause of these killings.. not take away an instrument which is used... (I am not an NRA NUT) but we need to look at the underlying social / econimic issues going on in the USA which are causing these youngsters to react the way they do...

Take care of the ROOT cause and these killings stop... hey why arent these killing common in Canada? Maybe they are doing something correctly (yes Americans bash them all the time) but we might need to take a lesson from them.

“When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.”
― Helen Keller
Monocle
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 10:38:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
MrNudiePants wrote:
It's okay. You can ignore actual facts, and call them "made-up". I won't stop you.

Name me the federal laws.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11:39:18 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,330
guns do not kill more people than cars, id like to see that stat
LOVES4PLAY
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:37:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/14/2010
Posts: 944
Location: JUST A CLICK AWAY, United States
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I'VE AIMED AT A TARGET, CENTERED THE CROSS HAIRS ON THE BULLS EYE...
YET NOTHING HAPPENS,& NOTHING WILL UNTIL,I SLOWLY SQUEEZE THE TRIGGER..
A FIREARM WILL NOT NOR CAN IT KILL,UNLESS SOMEONE PULLS THE TRIGGER...
EXCEPTIONS,IDIOTS CARRYING A SHELL IN THE CHAMBER WHILE ROAD HUNTING,TRYING TO CROSS A FENCE WHILE HOLDING A LOADED FIREARM.OR THE GUN IS DROPPED

FROM SHORTLY AFTER CREATION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLING PEOPLE WITH ANY WEAPON AT HAND..
HAD NOT GUNS BEEN USED ,WE MIGHT STILL BE PAYING TAXES TO A QUEEN,SLAVERY ABOLISHED THROUGH GUNS & A GREAT LOSS OF LIFE...

Guest
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:55:03 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,330

Cars don't kill people.
People driving cars to gun shows to buy guns to kill people with, kill people.

Thank you all for supporting Iran's right to arm itself with nuclear weapons,
(it's in the amen-dment),
because, (*sigh*), nuclear weapons don't kill people...
Dementorkissed
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:59:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/24/2012
Posts: 174
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:

Cars don't kill people.
People driving cars to gun shows to buy guns to kill people with, kill people.

Thank you all for supporting Iran's right to arm itself with nuclear weapons,
(it's in the amen-dment),
because, (*sigh*), nuclear weapons don't kill people...


lol
you are very correct my friend...

I have heard that argument from every single NRA nut in the world.. lol and it is funny and absurd...

GUNS and NUKES are designed and made for ONE SINGLE PURPOSE to KILL and destroy and kill..

Where as Cars are designed to transport..

why cant these NRA nuts see this basic differnce is beyond me

“When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.”
― Helen Keller
Guest
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 5:55:29 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,330
When criminal countries like North Korea have nuclear weapons, you NEED a nuclear weapon to defend yourself. Good countries with nuclear weapons are the only deterrent to bad countries with nuclear weapons. Besides, when fissionable material is so prevalent on the black market, you're never going to eradicate it. If you outlaw nuclear weapons, only outlaw nations will have nuclear weapons...

..."MR. PRESIDENT, WE CANNOT ALLOW A MINE SHAFT GAP."


Cheers, Dementorkissed.
Sign the petition:

http://www.demandaplan.org
Dementorkissed
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:08:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/24/2012
Posts: 174
Location: United States
Oberon,
Korea, although demented, can be tamed because the main troublemakers are at the top... the world needs to work on calming China down and Korea and its leadership will crumble. (anyway their Nuke program is not home grown, it was sold to them by Pakistan..so there is a definite lack of techincal know how there in Korea)..

The main issue I see right now is the Nukes in the hands of the Taliban in Pakistan. Most common misconcetion the govts of the west are feeding the people is that there is a difference between the Govt. of Pakistan and the Taliban and the Govt. of Pakistan is doing something to curb the infiltration.

Believe me... these Radicals are the main concern and the Western governments are sleeping... just like they did when Pakistan first acquired the bomb and then exploded it.

Its not IF these Taliban are going to use the Nukes but its just a matter of WHEN they will use the nukes.

At that time the "Presidents" of the worlds will be out in force blaming someone else other then themselves.

Signing petitions.. thats a good idea, I have written directly to the President about this issue a number of time via a number of different channels.. and guess what... I get a reply back telling me "we will take it under advisement"

what we need is a Change in the whole game plan these governments have i.e. from SCREW THE PEOPLE AND MAKE MONEY to WORK FOR THE PEOPLE.


“When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.”
― Helen Keller
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:18:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:

Name me the federal laws.


I've already posted the descriptions of the federal codes currently in force. The"new" laws you suggest are already codified into statutes here in The United States, in areas with populations diverse enough to represent America as a whole, and populous enough to more than adequately provide statistically significant samples. The data is there. These "new" laws are ineffective at preventing crime (at best) and actually prevent law-abiding people from having the means to protect themselves and their families (at worst). Why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for the additional hundreds of millions or billions of dollars needed to roll out "new" laws when we already know that they're not going to have any effect on crime? You're grasping at straws. You're not alone in this, but that doesn't make your "plan" any more effective, or any less wasteful.

Monocle
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 8:21:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
Name the federal laws that require background checks for every gun sale in the country. Name the federal law that requires registration of each gun to each owner. Name. Them.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 8:46:52 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:
Name the federal laws that require background checks for every gun sale in the country. Name the federal law that requires registration of each gun to each owner. Name. Them.


Good. God. Man. Is. Your. Way. Of. Debating. A. Point. To. Overdramatize. Shit. And. Sound. Like. A. Broken. Record?

Monocle
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:01:56 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
All you've got is diversion and distraction. Name the laws.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:40:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
See my post... Oh, about four posts back. Thats the best you're gonna get. And if you answer the main question I posed in that post, it would be just super.

Dudealicious
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:02:36 AM

Rank: Wise Ass

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,413
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
LOVES4PLAY wrote:
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I'VE AIMED AT A TARGET, CENTERED THE CROSS HAIRS ON THE BULLS EYE...
YET NOTHING HAPPENS,& NOTHING WILL UNTIL,I SLOWLY SQUEEZE THE TRIGGER..
A FIREARM WILL NOT NOR CAN IT KILL,UNLESS SOMEONE PULLS THE TRIGGER...
EXCEPTIONS,IDIOTS CARRYING A SHELL IN THE CHAMBER WHILE ROAD HUNTING,TRYING TO CROSS A FENCE WHILE HOLDING A LOADED FIREARM.OR THE GUN IS DROPPED

FROM SHORTLY AFTER CREATION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLING PEOPLE WITH ANY WEAPON AT HAND..
HAD NOT GUNS BEEN USED ,WE MIGHT STILL BE PAYING TAXES TO A QUEEN,SLAVERY ABOLISHED THROUGH GUNS & A GREAT LOSS OF LIFE...



Not sure if you are aware of this or not L4P, but it's perceived as yelling when someone posts in caps lock. Some people may take offence to that, just a heads up.

The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

slavegary
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:31:55 AM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 12/10/2012
Posts: 9
Location: United States
If we outlaw gun only heros(military,police and followers of the 2nd amendment)will have guns.
If we outlaw guns let's outlaw alcohol and marijuana.
The people that want guns outlawed are the ones that surrender when a war brakes out or don't care about the safty of their country or family.
Only losers want guns outlawed.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:37:49 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
slavegary wrote:
If we outlaw gun only heros(military,police and followers of the 2nd amendment)will have guns.
If we outlaw guns let's outlaw alcohol and marijuana.
The people that want guns outlawed are the ones that surrender when a war brakes out or don't care about the safty of their country or family.
Only losers want guns outlawed.


Just the losers want guns outlawed? No way. You forgot about:

Communists
Evil-Doers
The Terrorists (who have already won, if we outlaw guns)
Pinkos
Liberals
Fags
People who read poetry
Socialists
Supporters of Team Coco
Jets fans
Presbyterians
Hair Dressers
Trekkies

oh, and...

Lots of sane, intelligent people who happen to disagree with you.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 11:45:08 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,330
LadyX wrote:


Just the losers want guns outlawed? No way. You forgot about:

Communists
Evil-Doers
The Terrorists (who have already won, if we outlaw guns)
Pinkos
Liberals
Fags
People who read poetry
Socialists
Supporters of Team Coco
Jets fans
Presbyterians
Hair Dressers
Trekkies

oh, and...

Lots of sane, intelligent people who happen to disagree with you.


Not to mention the 26 children and adults shot at Newtown, and the approximately 238 people shot since:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html


MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:21:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Oberon wrote:


Not to mention the 26 children and adults shot at Newtown, and the approximately 238 people shot since:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html




[Archie Bunker] "Would it make ya feel any better, little goyle, if they was all pushed outa windows...?" [/Archie Bunker]

Monocle
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:52:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
MrNudiePants wrote:
See my post... Oh, about four posts back. Thats the best you're gonna get. And if you answer the main question I posed in that post, it would be just super.


So. No laws. Nothing but heaps of bullshit. You can't show me the federal laws for the two things I mentioned because there are none. You can't say they don't work with a shred of honesty or credibility because they haven't been in operation.

You asked for a proposal, I gave you the two simplest ideas for a start and you refused to give a straight answer.

You've no desire for honest dialog. I'm done with you. I know how disappointed you are.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 1:37:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:


So. No laws. Nothing but heaps of bullshit. You can't show me the federal laws for the two things I mentioned because there are none. You can't say they don't work with a shred of honesty or credibility because they haven't been in operation.

You asked for a proposal, I gave you the two simplest ideas for a start and you refused to give a straight answer.

You've no desire for honest dialog. I'm done with you. I know how disappointed you are.


I have answered you, but since you apparently didn't understand, I'll try again. According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, those states with the strictest gun laws include California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Maryland. This represents quite a cross-section of American life. It includes urban centers like Detroit, Philadelphia, NYC, and Greater Los Angeles as well as suburban and rural areas. In those areas, they already HAVE tried out the laws your touting. I'm no statistician, but a person would have to be an idiot to believe that this is not a large enough universe to be representative of the nation as a whole. If these restrictions aren't working there, a person would have to be either insane or an even bigger idiot to believe that they'll work on a nationwide basis.

Monocle
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:28:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
You haven't answered me. You've dissembled and diverted. I asked you to name federal laws and you didn't even have the ability admit that such don't exist. You still don't.

You think that state examples are adequate proxies for national applications, so much so that they demonstrate national rules could not work. That's crap. State laws are not sufficient proxy when one state over from, say Maryland, is Virginia, with far laxer gun laws and absolutely nothing to stop someone who couldn't buy in MD from buying in VA perfectly legally, and bringing it in. You're no statistician, you're also no geographer. A federal law means that the same rules apply everywhere and we don't have that. It's not about population size or diversity in on state city or region when the adjacent one has different rules.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:49:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:
You haven't answered me. You've dissembled and diverted. I asked you to name federal laws and you didn't even have the ability admit that such don't exist. You still don't.

You think that state examples are adequate proxies for national applications, so much so that they demonstrate national rules could not work. That's crap. State laws are not sufficient proxy when one state over from, say Maryland, is Virginia, with far laxer gun laws and absolutely nothing to stop someone who couldn't buy in MD from buying in VA perfectly legally, and bringing it in. You're no statistician, you're also no geographer. A federal law means that the same rules apply everywhere and we don't have that. It's not about population size or diversity in on state city or region when the adjacent one has different rules.


Except for the teensy-weensy little fact that it's against the law for a resident of one state to buy a firearm in another state. And yes, that's a Federal thing.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.