Gun banning Groups

[Rucker61]

If you don't have to fill out a form for a background check, how would you stop a criminals from buying guns from a bass pro shop?

Keep them imprisoned. If they are considered too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to be in public.

What happens when a felon tries to buy a gun a Bass Pro now, committing a felony in the process?

 

[Absentglare]

first of all what is an "assault weapon" different states have included 3000 dollar 5 shot olympic target pistols. (which is why the Olympic trials which were held in LA for several games had to be moved to Atlanta after California passed its idiotic laws) other states included the famous Winchester Model 12 (introduced before WW ONE) as an assault weapon.

its a complete lie since the term "assault" as used by the military requires select fire firearms and none of the guns the bannerrhoid movement wants to target have that capability.

Secondly, if you support banning guns owned in the 40 million number range, that makes you a GUN BANNER. trying to pretend that since you do not CURRENTLY call for bans on other guns, means you aren't a banner is a lie

BTW absentglare do you support banning any type of firearm?

Here how about this. We'll call it a TOY ban. She wants to ban toys. Sound honest to you?

 

[Absentglare]

But it is a gun ban. Assault weapons are guns and it mentions the word "ban" right in the title. It does not have to ban all guns to be a gun ban.

It's an assault weapons ban. Misrepresenting what it is isn't an argument, it's a lie.

Pretty sure I did not mention accidents; I only addressed the efficacy of signs in stopping those with homicidal entering school grounds.

Ah, then you seem to be playing a dishonest rhetorical game rather than valuing human lives.

 

[Absentglare]

Is an assault weapons ban a type of gun ban? If not, what would have to be included in the legislation to be considered a gun ban?

If it bans guns, as in guns are no longer allowed, then it bans guns.

 

[Rucker61]

If it bans guns, as in guns are no longer allowed, then it bans guns.

Just so I am clear, can you rewrite this sentence using "all", "most" or "some" in front of the words "guns", using whichever word best suits your meaning.

 

[Rucker61]

It's an assault weapons ban. Misrepresenting what it is isn't an argument, it's a lie.

As "assault weapons" are guns, banning "assault weapons" is banning guns. It's a simple verb. If I write "I sold guns this weekend", did I sell "all" of my guns.

Ah, then you seem to be playing a dishonest rhetorical game rather than valuing human lives.

I claimed that "gun free zone" signs don't stop homicides in schools. That's a simple declaration. Accidents were not part of that declaration. Feel free to ask about them.

 

[gfm7175]

Dude we got it. You don't care about gun deaths. Mass shootings are no problem for you. School house full of kids die....you don't care. Suicides...many of them American hero veterans....not your problem. It's all about you. We get it

It's not that people don't care about gun deaths, It's just statistics don't lie... You are solely outraged about weapons which cause 3% of all gun homicides, and at the same time, you hypocritically don't give a ____ about the weapons causing the other 97% of gun homicides (handguns, shotguns, and etc...)

It's hypocritical and ignorant that you talk about "caring about gun deaths", yet you have absolutely zero outrage, let alone similar, let alone greater, outrage over the other 97% of gun homicides... And your outrage seems to be targeted at instances where multiple people get killed over a short period of time, rather than the additive number of people being killed (1 or 2 at a time) over a longer period of time. That is already reason enough not to take you seriously, let alone your lack of knowledge about the guns you wish to ban, let alone your lack of common sense reasoning which would lead you to the conclusion that registrations and changes to background checks aren't going to stop criminals, or stop people who already legally own guns, but then for one reason or another, choose to kill people with them, among other reasons...

Edit: school house full of kids die? You do know how that can be prevented, right? ... hint... it's not by allowing someone to walk into a school with a gun knowing that there will be no guns pointed back at them...

Edit2: Suicides and homicides are two completely different things, and should be discussed on separate terms... It's dishonest to bring suicides into this specific discussion...

 

[KerouacJack]

Keep them imprisoned. If they are considered too dangerous to own a gun, they're too dangerous to be in public.

What happens when a felon tries to buy a gun a Bass Pro now, committing a felony in the process?

So you think people with violent criminal records should be aloud to own guns?... ;because if they are walking around that means they have served their sentence and paid there debt to soceity.

If a felon buys a gun at a bass pro shop and is aloud to do so because of no background check... then a criminal just walked away with a new gun.... you are ok with this?

 

[gfm7175]

You are new. You have much to learn....LOL

So I'm supposed to make vague generalistic non-factually supported scare-tactic blanket statements instead of precise, logically sound, statistically backed statements? Gotcha...

 

[Rucker61]

So you think people with violent criminal records should be aloud to own guns?... ;because if they are walking around that means they have served their sentence and paid there debt to soceity.

Can these violent people own knives or hammers? Blades and bludgeoning homicides account for about five times the number of homicides as shotguns and rifles; even bare hands kill more people than rifles or shotguns. If they've paid their debt to society, why does society still consider them to be a threat to society such that they cannot own guns?

If a felon buys a gun at a bass pro shop and is aloud to do so because of no background check... then a criminal just walked away with a new gun.... you are ok with this?

If they fail a background check, after committing a felony trying to buy a gun, then they just walk away and get a gun through a straw purchase, corrupt FFL diversion, illegal street sale or theft. Background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns.

 

[KerouacJack]

As "assault weapons" are guns, banning "assault weapons" is banning guns. It's a simple verb. If I write "I sold guns this weekend", did I sell "all" of my guns.



I claimed that "gun free zone" signs don't stop homicides in schools. That's a simple declaration. Accidents were not part of that declaration. Feel free to ask about them.

Your not being specific that is problem...

if someone came up and said "Help, Someone is being killed in America!"
you would look at them blankly and maybe think they were deranged or something, because of lack of clarification...

if someone came up and said "Help, Two people have been killed at the bank down the block!" you would understand the situation better being given a more complete idea of what the person need help with...

does this example finally clear it up?

 

[TurtleDude]

It's an assault weapons ban. Misrepresenting what it is isn't an argument, it's a lie.



Ah, then you seem to be playing a dishonest rhetorical game rather than valuing human lives.

ah here we have the fundamental dishonesty of the gun banners. If we don't support moronic GUN bans, we don't care about "human lives"

this shows how bankrupt your idiotic arguments are. banning the most popular rifles in the USA is a GUN BAN. its BANNING firearms that are rarely used in violent crimes. its designed mainly to harass the millions of Americans who own them.

 

[KerouacJack]

Can these violent people own knives or hammers? Blades and bludgeoning homicides account for about five times the number of homicides as shotguns and rifles; even bare hands kill more people than rifles or shotguns. If they've paid their debt to society, why does society still consider them to be a threat to society such that they cannot own guns?



If they fail a background check, after committing a felony trying to buy a gun, then they just walk away and get a gun through a straw purchase, corrupt FFL diversion, illegal street sale or theft. Background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns.

so you answered yes to the first question and then gave an answer to a question I did not ask?....

 

[TurtleDude]

So you think people with violent criminal records should be aloud to own guns?... ;because if they are walking around that means they have served their sentence and paid there debt to soceity.

If a felon buys a gun at a bass pro shop and is aloud to do so because of no background check... then a criminal just walked away with a new gun.... you are ok with this?

what was the felony for: mass murder-NO, tax evasion or selling a few blotters to fellow dead heads at concert-Yes

 

[KerouacJack]

what was the felony for: mass murder-NO, tax evasion or selling a few blotters to fellow dead heads at concert-Yes

Then you are for background checks when buying a gun?

 

[Rucker61]

Your not being specific that is problem...

if someone came up and said "Help, Someone is being killed in America!"
you would look at them blankly and maybe think they were deranged or something, because of lack of clarification...

if someone came up and said "Help, Two people have been killed at the bank down the block!" you would understand the situation better being given a more complete idea of what the person need help with...

does this example finally clear it up?

It's not the same thing. Banning assault weapons is only banning a subset of guns, but it's still a ban on guns and even the smallest gun ban is a problem.

 

[TurtleDude]

Then you are for background checks when buying a gun?

they have proven to be a waste of time in decreasing violent crime they impose substantial costs on some people who are wrongly denied-for a year the federal government refused to adjudicate appeals of those wrongly denied. it costs lots of money to administer and the federal government almost never prosecutes those who commit perjury and are caught doing so by the background check

and on a more fundamental basis, the federal government's use of the commerce clause to claim it has the proper power to demand dealers to do this, is dishonest and violates both the second and tenth amendments as well as the obvious intent and language of the commerce clause. so I don't even believe the federal government has this proper power

 

[KerouacJack]

It's not the same thing. Banning assault weapons is only banning a subset of guns, but it's still a ban on guns and even the smallest gun ban is a problem.

Yes it is because banning "assault weapons" is the proposal; not banning "guns"; that is not the language being used and the term "guns" is to vague to accurately describe what is being banned.

 

[Rucker61]

so you answered yes to the first question and then gave an answer to a question I did not ask?....

It doesn't matter if I think they should be allowed to own guns - background check laws don't prevent them from owning guns. If they've paid their debt to society, as you've noted, and they are out of prison, why or why not should society forbid them from owning guns? If the reason is that they are still considered dangerous to society, then we have to ask (1) why are they allowed in society and (2) why don't we prevent them from buying and owning other common implements of murder like knives?

If we don't want them to own guns, and only guns, then we need to actually enforce the laws we've created to do such.

1. Arrest those who commit felonies while attempting to get guns. In 2010, 72,000 applicants were denied permission to purchase a firearm via the NICS and state systems. 34,000 of these were denied for previous felony convictions. Only 10 (10!) were convicted. We still have tens of thousands of people who committed a felony by lying on the Form 4473 and have a violent past free to find guns through illegal means. Given that a violent felon is looking for a gun, how many violent crimes could be prevented by arresting and incarcerating these felons? https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
2. Mandatory sentences for those who use guns in acts of criminal violence. Stop plea bargaining away gun crimes. Thousands of felony gun cases are being dismissed in Cook County criminal courts | Chicago Reporter
3. Fully prosecute and punish straw purchasers. Police oppose probation sentence given to buyer of gun used to kill Kerrie Orozco | Crime & Courts | omaha.com

 

[Rucker61]

Yes it is because banning "assault weapons" is the proposal; not banning "guns"; that is not the language being used and the term "guns" is to vague to accurately describe what is being banned.

Are assault weapons "guns"? If assault weapons are banned, are any guns banned? Banning any guns makes a gun ban. It's the way the English language is constructed. The sentence "I want to ban guns" can be interpreted, correctly, as "I want to ban [all] guns" or "I want to ban [some] guns".

I want to kill elk. Does that mean I want to kill [all] elk, or just [some] elk?

 

[KerouacJack]

they have proven to be a waste of time in decreasing violent crime they impose substantial costs on some people who are wrongly denied-for a year the federal government refused to adjudicate appeals of those wrongly denied. it costs lots of money to administer and the federal government almost never prosecutes those who commit perjury and are caught doing so by the background check

and on a more fundamental basis, the federal government's use of the commerce clause to claim it has the proper power to demand dealers to do this, is dishonest and violates both the second and tenth amendments as well as the obvious intent and language of the commerce clause. so I don't even believe the federal government has this proper power

Laws against murder don't stop murder, theft from thieves.... loiters from loitering.. you still have them and enforce them through great expense...i'm not a constitutional lawyer but if states wanted to enforce background checks their is a strong argument they wouldnt be violating the constitution at all

 

[KerouacJack]

Are assault weapons "guns"? If assault weapons are banned, are any guns banned? Banning any guns makes a gun ban. It's the way the English language is constructed. The sentence "I want to ban guns" can be interpreted, correctly, as "I want to ban [all] guns" or "I want to ban [some] guns".

I want to kill elk. Does that mean I want to kill [all] elk, or just [some] elk?

This could literally be a english question you have just failed 5 times is row. That would go like this.

Vermont wants to ban Assault Weapons which are a subclass of guns..

which statement is the most correct:

A) Vermont wants to ban guns.
B) Vermont wants to ban most gun.
C) Vermont wants to ban some guns.
D) Vermont want to ban Bananas.

HINT; The answer isn't A

If this doesn't explain it you just being dishonest about this on purpose..

 

[Absentglare]

Just so I am clear, can you rewrite this sentence using "all", "most" or "some" in front of the words "guns", using whichever word best suits your meaning.

Legislation that permits guns cannot be honestly claimed to ban guns.

 

[Rucker61]

This could literally be a english question you have just failed 5 times is row. That would go like this.

Vermont wants to ban Assault Weapons which are a subclass of guns..

which statement is the most correct:

A) Vermont wants to ban guns.
B) Vermont wants to ban most gun.
C) Vermont wants to ban some guns.
D) Vermont want to ban Bananas.

HINT; The answer isn't A

If this doesn't explain it you just being dishonest about this on purpose..

Yet A is correct. Most correct is an opinion.

 

[Rucker61]

Legislation that permits guns cannot be honestly claimed to ban guns.

It does both. If "the legislation bans guns" must be read as "all guns" then "the legislation permits guns" must also be read as "all guns". Or, it could be read as "it permits some guns and bans some guns".