3 reported dead, 15 injured amid gunfire at New Mexico high school

[Bucky]

Suicides. Not something that can be fixed by gun control. Yet one more example of the need for research into pets disorders and mental health
.

You make something easier for someone to do than they will more likely do it.

Gun control would definitely reduce the number of suicide and gun violence. That is a fact.

 

[Lursa]

You make something easier for someone to do than they will more likely do it.

And not forcing more restrictions on my gun ownership or carrying makes it easier for me to protect myself, my family, and my home.

Thank you.

 

[Bucky]

And not forcing more restrictions on my gun ownership or carrying makes it easier for me to protect myself, my family, and my home.

Thank you.

All I heard from you was "me" "my" "myself." Stop being self-centered and have just an ounce of consideration for the lives of millions.

Thank you.

 

[blackjack50]

You make something easier for someone to do than they will more likely do it.

Gun control would definitely reduce the number of suicide and gun violence. That is a fact.

I carry a firearm almost everywhere I go. I have 100% access to my firearm. I am at exactly 0% for odds of committing suicide. Do you see the problem with your logic? It assumes EVERYONE is at risk. They aren’t. Following your logic...Japan would have a lower suicide rate than The United States. But they don’t. Why? Social science is not as simple as you make it seem. And you know this too.

 

[blackjack50]

All I heard from you was "me" "my" "myself." Stop being self-centered and have just an ounce of consideration for the lives of millions.

Thank you.

We can say the same to you. We have done nothing. But you want to infringe on our rights without due process. Why not pursue those who are the problem?

Because the most politically expedient response is also the most beneficial for one party politically.

 

[Bucky]

We can say the same to you. We have done nothing. But you want to infringe on our rights without due process. Why not pursue those who are the problem?

Because the most politically expedient response is also the most beneficial for one party politically.

Infringement of due process:

Gun registration
gun database
banning bum stock
Limiting straw sales

Basically anything common sense.

 

[blackjack50]

Infringement of due process:

Gun registration
gun database
banning bum stock
Limiting straw sales

Basically anything common sense.

Not to sound like a dick...but what do you mean infringement of due process? Or are you saying that these are not infringements...the things you listed? Because they are.

A registration requires me register to have my right. That is not acceptable. That is a violation of due process. A firearms database is a list of firearms owners I assume? Why does the government need to know who and is not using a right? They don’t.

I would give you bump stocks, but ultimately you will just ask for 30 round magazines and removable magazines and so on. It is just more incrementalism. And I won’t play that game because nothing is ever good enough.

How about preventing and punishing straw sales and purchase? That is already a crime. I’m wholeheartedly on board to the point that I believe if someone can be found guilty of doing so...and the firearm the illegally purchased is used to kill someone...they should get the death penalty as well. And we don’t need more laws to target these people. We just need to use existing laws. Get rid of the atf, turn their budget to the fbi, use the fbi to target illegal sales. Any time someone commits a crime with a firearm and they were an unlawful owner...we should not be offering deals and we should be going after the provider.

We need a database of criminals and a database of places where an ffl has sold a firearm to someone who is unlawful.

 

[Lursa]

All I heard from you was "me" "my" "myself." Stop being self-centered and have just an ounce of consideration for the lives of millions.

Thank you.

And I, Me, and Myself with my guns are not in anyway a danger to those other millions of Americans, so you have no point.

 

[ataraxia]

Bad people do bad things. That's never going away. Taking away one tool with which they do bad things won't stop them from doing bad things; they'll simply find a new tool.

So why are we worried about Iran and Kim Jung Un having nukes?

 

[ataraxia]

Not to sound like a dick...but what do you mean infringement of due process? Or are you saying that these are not infringements...the things you listed? Because they are.

A registration requires me register to have my right. That is not acceptable. That is a violation of due process. A firearms database is a list of firearms owners I assume? Why does the government need to know who and is not using a right? They don’t.

I would give you bump stocks, but ultimately you will just ask for 30 round magazines and removable magazines and so on. It is just more incrementalism. And I won’t play that game because nothing is ever good enough.

Some common sense measures are not incrementalism, nor are the unconstitutional. This is not my personal opinion. It's not liberal ideology by those who are out to ultimately take away your hunting rifle. It was the opinion of former chief justice Antonin Scalia, formally exaplained in his decision in the famous Heller case:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms... We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
-Chief Justice Antonin Scalia

 

[Dittohead not!]

that still costs us lots of money. I'd say make them get job and pay society back, if someone defrauds say a pension fund of a million, chances are they have far better prospects of paying most of that back in a white collar position as opposed to some Ivan Boesky or Marc Rich working on a chain gang as 60 year old man

and give them an incentive: Pay it back, or go to work on the chain gang.

 

[Dittohead not!]

what of them. Few guns used in crime come from such sales and those who think they can stop that are pissing up a rope

Then prosecuting people for lying on a questionnaire wouldn't do much good either, would it?

 

[TurtleDude]

Then prosecuting people for lying on a questionnaire wouldn't do much good either, would it?

I think you missed the point

gun banners want to put a duty on private sellers to conduct background checks and prosecute them they don't to stop felons from getting guns. The harm is felons with guns and there are already severe penalties in place for felons with guns. Felons who lie on forms trying to get guns can easily be convicted of perjury

why do gun banners want to go after sellers of guns for failing to say drive to a gun dealer, pay a gun dealer to do a background check or worse yet, force me to do such a thing to lend my brother or cousin a gun when he comes in town and wants to go shooting on my range?

People who lie on the form are either felons or people who are knowingly buying a gun for someone they know is felon

 

[Bucky]

I think you missed the point

gun banners want to put a duty on private sellers to conduct background checks and prosecute them they don't to stop felons from getting guns. The harm is felons with guns and there are already severe penalties in place for felons with guns. Felons who lie on forms trying to get guns can easily be convicted of perjury

why do gun banners want to go after sellers of guns for failing to say drive to a gun dealer, pay a gun dealer to do a background check or worse yet, force me to do such a thing to lend my brother or cousin a gun when he comes in town and wants to go shooting on my range?

People who lie on the form are either felons or people who are knowingly buying a gun for someone they know is felon

I think people, even non-criminals should be limited in the number of guns they should purchase. Why should a person be able to purchase 100 Glocks or M1911 pistols?

I can name plenty of things you cannot buy an unlimited amount of. There is no reason for everyday joe to buy guns unfettered.

 

[Bucky]

And I, Me, and Myself with my guns are not in anyway a danger to those other millions of Americans, so you have no point.

We all collectively have to pull our weight together to combat gun violence.

I own a TIKI-T. Probably worth 5-10 k right now. If getting rid of my gun can help society, I would be all for it.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think people, even non-criminals should be limited in the number of guns they should purchase. Why should a person be able to purchase 100 Glocks or M1911 pistols?

I can name plenty of things you cannot buy an unlimited amount of. There is no reason for everyday joe to buy guns unfettered.

the second amendment is a negative restriction on the government. the supreme court has held, and the founders clearly indicated, that the federal government cannot ban you from owing or acquiring a handgun. HOW does the government suddenly get the power after you have bought several handguns?

what harm comes from someone owning 100 handguns or machine guns for that matter?

the only limitation should be how many firearms someone can AFFORD. not what someone like you thinks they should be able to own

you're on record as being opposed to citizens OWNING EVEN ONE firearm. so excuse me if I reject your argument as pure BS

 

[Lursa]

And I, Me, and Myself with my guns are not in anyway a danger to those other millions of Americans, so you have no point.

We all collectively have to pull our weight together to combat gun violence.

I own a TIKI-T. Probably worth 5-10 k right now. If getting rid of my gun can help society, I would be all for it.

How would my getting rid of my guns combat gun violence? Keeping them would combat gun violence against me and my family.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I think you missed the point

gun banners want to put a duty on private sellers to conduct background checks and prosecute them they don't to stop felons from getting guns. The harm is felons with guns and there are already severe penalties in place for felons with guns. Felons who lie on forms trying to get guns can easily be convicted of perjury

why do gun banners want to go after sellers of guns for failing to say drive to a gun dealer, pay a gun dealer to do a background check or worse yet, force me to do such a thing to lend my brother or cousin a gun when he comes in town and wants to go shooting on my range?

People who lie on the form are either felons or people who are knowingly buying a gun for someone they know is felon

You already know whether your brother or cousin is a felon or not.

If lying on the form were to be prosecuted, it would simply drive the felons and escapees from mental institutions to purchase from a private party and so avoid having to fill out a form at all. What good would that do?

And, there's a difference between being a "gun banner" and thinking we should try to make it as difficult as possible for nutters and felons to obtain weapons.

How's this for a gun banner?

 

[Dittohead not!]

This is for Turtledude. Merry Christmas!

 

[TurtleDude]

You already know whether your brother or cousin is a felon or not.

If lying on the form were to be prosecuted, it would simply drive the felons and escapees from mental institutions to purchase from a private party and so avoid having to fill out a form at all. What good would that do?

And, there's a difference between being a "gun banner" and thinking we should try to make it as difficult as possible for nutters and felons to obtain weapons.

How's this for a gun banner?

so a man visits his brother in the middle of nowhere and the two want to go hunting. In some states the two have to go to a gun dealer-perhaps an hour away, during business hours, pay the dealer a fee for one to lend the gun to another and some want to make it a felony if the fail to do so. Most people won't bother and then the gun banners want to demand complete registration of all firearms so the "instant background check" can be enforced

its idiotic and few guns are actually acquired by criminals who buy guns from unsuspecting private sellers. almost all criminals who get guns from others are known to be criminals by those who supply them.

 

[Dittohead not!]

so a man visits his brother in the middle of nowhere and the two want to go hunting. In some states the two have to go to a gun dealer-perhaps an hour away, during business hours, pay the dealer a fee for one to lend the gun to another and some want to make it a felony if the fail to do so. Most people won't bother and then the gun banners want to demand complete registration of all firearms so the "instant background check" can be enforced

its idiotic and few guns are actually acquired by criminals who buy guns from unsuspecting private sellers. almost all criminals who get guns from others are known to be criminals by those who supply them.

Exactly, and those who supply them are accessories before the fact for any crimes that the criminals might commit, and should be prosecuted as such. That should make a seller think twice before selling without a background check.

And, should the buyer have a license issued by the state, then the seller can be certain that he/she won't be prosecuted. That's why licensing of gun owners is a good idea, and wouldn't keep you or any other law abiding citizen from purchasing all the guns they can afford.

 

[TurtleDude]

Exactly, and those who supply them are accessories before the fact for any crimes that the criminals might commit, and should be prosecuted as such. That should make a seller think twice before selling without a background check.

And, should the buyer have a license issued by the state, then the seller can be certain that he/she won't be prosecuted. That's why licensing of gun owners is a good idea, and wouldn't keep you or any other law abiding citizen from purchasing all the guns they can afford.

I cannot understand how someone who claims to be a libertarian is such a fan of making a constitutional right subject to license. Its like believing requiring prescriptions keeps pushers from selling heroin to addicts.

 

[TurtleDude]

Exactly, and those who supply them are accessories before the fact for any crimes that the criminals might commit, and should be prosecuted as such. That should make a seller think twice before selling without a background check.

And, should the buyer have a license issued by the state, then the seller can be certain that he/she won't be prosecuted. That's why licensing of gun owners is a good idea, and wouldn't keep you or any other law abiding citizen from purchasing all the guns they can afford.

BTW do you want to put people in jail who lend a gun to a friend, without conducting or paying a dealer to conduct a BGC, even though neither have criminal records?

 

[Dittohead not!]

I cannot understand how someone who claims to be a libertarian is such a fan of making a constitutional right subject to license. Its like believing requiring prescriptions keeps pushers from selling heroin to addicts.

Part of the Libertarian philosophy, not necessarily the party of that name, is that the purpose of government is to protect our liberties. If I can't be safe in a crowd because crazies are out there with powerful weapons, then it's a legitimate function of government to protect me from those crazies. The best way to do that is to keep weapons out of the hands of those crazies. Requiring a license for the purchase of a firearm isn't going to stop legitimate gun owners from purchasing all of the guns they want. It would save time, as the purchaser wouldn't have to undergo a background check for every purchase.

The "banners" you rail about want to limit the sorts of guns that are available. To me, that makes no sense as it does limit a Constitutional right, but does nothing to keep the public safe.

 

[Dittohead not!]

BTW do you want to put people in jail who lend a gun to a friend, without conducting or paying a dealer to conduct a BGC, even though neither have criminal records?

If they lend a gun to a friend who then goes hunting, shoots no one, and returns the gun, of course not.
If the friend takes the gun and holds up the nearest Quickie Mart, then yes, the lender is an accessory before the fact.