RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms.

RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms.

30 days

5% (1)

1 year

0% (0)

2-5 years

5% (1)

6-10 years

0% (0)

more than ten years

88% (16)

Total Votes : 18

(last vote on : 10/31/2016 2:01:17 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 1:18:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: And according to the polls in 18 days the voters will virtually repeal the 1st and 2nd. That is rank nonsense. The people have no vote in abolishing or installing an Amendment. Again you are dense. Hillary has promised to virtually destroy the 2nd and to submit a Constitutional amendment to weaken the 1st, can the rest be far behind? Lots of shit has to happen first. First of all she has to get a supreme court justice nominee through congress, and if they aren't liberal enough it is not going to happen. then they have to get a uncostitutional law passed and she has to sign it, and technically it will take effect until it is challenged in Constitutional grounds. This is why we need an opposing congress. She might put up Sarah Brady as a nominee and with a democrat congress might just get that off. BUT, even if they pass a ban it cannot be enforced because anyone can cite supreme court cases and the law is effectively null and void. And if the judge does not agree he will be overturned which is like kryptonite to judges. The supreme court has already made the highest case law possible. For that to change, first of all there has to be a challenge. And then the supreme court has to decide willingly to even hear the case. And there is no guarantee that one of the nine will make a difference because they might just like guns, whether or not she knows it. Likewise Trump could nominate one who is conservative, or claims to be but be against guns. Again, someone has to challenge the previous ruling or it stands. If either of them tries to subvert Castle Law Doctrine by executive order, there are enough people with one dollar each to make a serious challenge to that. Executive orders are generally meant for the military, not domestic issues and IIRC only a scant few of them have been overturned or even challenged in the courts. Having the courts overrule an EO is a black mark on the President's record. Why do you think Obama didn't do it ? You know he wants to. You have to remember you are not electing a dictator. There are still checks and balances. The problem here is we need a republican congress to put down anyone Clinton would nominate. But I am pretty sure that Trump does not know who to nominate. He has no law schooling as if it matters because Obama was supposedly a scholar and has no idea of the spirit of the Constitution, but with both parties animosity against him they will probably not confirm anyone he puts up. Just out of spite and jealousy, because he won over them. But that is OK. Deadlock the government. They fuck everything up so the less they do the better. As long as Clinton does not get a democrat congress we should be alright. Except for that WW3 thing. She can, as commander in chief of the military, direct them to attack another country. That is one area where I trust Trump more. She has lived a life of immunity and successful coverups. She has never faced any consequences. She does not understand war, and in fact lied about being under fire. Not that I really do understand war all that much, but I do understand that it is only good for the military contractors. Like Haliburton that moved to Dubai after sucking the US dry. And Blackwater. Morton Thiachol. Raytheon. Lockheed. And they own her and the reason the republic party does not like Trump is because he is not owned by those people but they are. And I bet AIPAC hasn't given Trump a fucking dime. That is one good reason to discard some of his public gaffs. And they are not as bad as Clinton laughing out loud about serious shit like an autistic child. Trump may be a bit displaced from reality, and if he gets elected he is going to find out a whole lot of shit he never wanted to know. But she is out on Mars somewhere. I mean, Trump probably did get over in a few deals but don't forget business is business and they were trying to get over on him as well. Talking about all his lawsuits, he was the plaintiff in well over half of them. You don't know the details, maybe they did shoddy work, maybe they didn't even fulfill the contract. Got the fucking transcripts bring them out. By all means. I am really not trying to stick up for Trump, he is a rich lazy asshole who uses every tool in the book to get ahead, and yes, at the cost of others. But you tell me one politician or rich person who did not do that. Last one even came close was Henry Ford and liberals hate him because he was not a Jew lover. So who does that leave ? Bill Gates ? He stole almost everything. Bought DOS cheap, built a shell on it and sold it. Later figured out how to make people pay for it. And Win 95 was stolen from a company called Quarterdeck which put out a DOS shell called Desqview. TEN YEARS EARLIER. The main thing Bill Gates did is to figure out how to make people pay. The GUI was Apple. Windows 3.11 had very little going for it beyond IBM's OS2 with Presentation Manager. What other heroes do you all have I can trash. Abe Lincoln ? He did not want to free the slaves. In fact he wanted to send them back to Africa. And his proclimation only applied to rebel states, loyal states were allowed to keep their slaves. Who else ? Seriously, who else ? What about the Alien and Sedition act, curbing of free speech almost before the ink was dry on the Constitution. They might come for our guns, I say give them to them lead first. They got a fucking 100 million people ? Well we do. When they call them in simply say no. They are asshole motherfuckers who have Europe and Australia cowed and brainwashed. They are all over the world. I want to know how Diane Feinstein can keep getting reelected. She usually runs unopposed. Where the fuck is the NRA ? Where the fuck are the gun owners there ? Well being California I guess they might be cleaning their guns while loaded... Rant over. T^T Feinstein is retiring. Yes we have to hope for an opposing congress if she wins. Several polls that came out today showed them in a dead heat. I don't like Trump, I voted for Cruz in our primary and would have accepted just about any of the Republicans, but Hillary is far worse.

mnottertail -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 4:49:35 AM)
Yeah, there wont be a nutsucker president in this century. Every nutsucker is far worse. Nutsuckers have destroyed the country and turned it into welfare patients.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 7:29:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: And according to the polls in 18 days the voters will virtually repeal the 1st and 2nd. That is rank nonsense. The people have no vote in abolishing or installing an Amendment. Again you are dense. Hillary has promised to virtually destroy the 2nd and to submit a Constitutional amendment to weaken the 1st, can the rest be far behind? You make outlandish accusations in your frenzied paranoia and assign remarks to Hillary that she never made. She has called for regulations not repeal. Give me a citation for your lies. Start with this dailycaller.com/2015/10/16/clinton-announces-massive-gun-control-plan Here where she lied about Heller just last week. Then we have this, from CNN no less www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/opinions/keane-gun-liability-hillary-clinton/ Then we have this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94 And this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94 Now if you are half the man you you think you are you will apologize for calling me a liar.

mnottertail -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 7:44:41 AM)
nobody is going to bother with a lying nutsucker slobber blog from a welfare patient. Get real. credible citation? Nope didnt think so. deceptively edited sound bites, while the mainstay of the nutsuckers, are not contextual, germain, nor discourse.

thishereboi -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 8:36:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance I think it is a reasonabke question, tbat those in countries who have willingly handed in their guns could maybe answer; if tbe insults and snark were set aside for one freaking day. I have asked myself this question. If I willingly relinquished my guns, is my police force and government incorruptible enough to actually destroy them - OR - would they turn around and sell them to whomever has the cash. How did other countries peacefully disarm and protect theif itizens? Is this possible here, in America, in our current mess of a corrupt government where the only way to get something passed or accomplished is to set aside your own personal ethics and get dirty with some you scratch my back I will s ratch yours. I own 2 riffles and a pistol and I would happily hand them over, to live in a country free of gun crimes where children didn't die by bullet, if some of these existing problems were corected. So please, those in Australia and the UK, put azixe your snark and your past arguments and hatred of whichever troll or moron or whatever and discuss options. At this point, it appears the only way to make a peaceful world possible iz to tar and feather every last politician and rip up existing legislation and make government pay equitable to minimum wage and lobbying punishable. Note that virtually everyone on here who says that we should give up our guns and count on the police to protect us will turn around and say that the cops are murderers every time they shoot someone. Because, from what we've seen in the news and media, it does appear that way. That's because the police are gun first rather than other ways to take down an assailant when they aren't armed and pointing. That's because when they arrest someone or take them down without a gun, it doesn't make the news. It doesn't mean they shoot every suspect they come across.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 8:45:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance I think it is a reasonabke question, tbat those in countries who have willingly handed in their guns could maybe answer; if tbe insults and snark were set aside for one freaking day. I have asked myself this question. If I willingly relinquished my guns, is my police force and government incorruptible enough to actually destroy them - OR - would they turn around and sell them to whomever has the cash. How did other countries peacefully disarm and protect theif itizens? Is this possible here, in America, in our current mess of a corrupt government where the only way to get something passed or accomplished is to set aside your own personal ethics and get dirty with some you scratch my back I will s ratch yours. I own 2 riffles and a pistol and I would happily hand them over, to live in a country free of gun crimes where children didn't die by bullet, if some of these existing problems were corected. So please, those in Australia and the UK, put azixe your snark and your past arguments and hatred of whichever troll or moron or whatever and discuss options. At this point, it appears the only way to make a peaceful world possible iz to tar and feather every last politician and rip up existing legislation and make government pay equitable to minimum wage and lobbying punishable. Note that virtually everyone on here who says that we should give up our guns and count on the police to protect us will turn around and say that the cops are murderers every time they shoot someone. Because, from what we've seen in the news and media, it does appear that way. That's because the police are gun first rather than other ways to take down an assailant when they aren't armed and pointing. That's because when they arrest someone or take them down without a gun, it doesn't make the news. It doesn't mean they shoot every suspect they come across. And as he does so often he proves my point, he wants us to get rid of guns so the police have to be our only protection while claiming the police gun down everyone they can. Speaks to the bias of the media. I do acknowledge that if it bleeds it leads, but you notice that the majority of the time when the police have to shoot someone it doesn't make the news. Apparently his critical thinking is not functioning or he would realize that if he were correct there would literally thousands of people shot by the police every year.

thishereboi -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 8:56:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It is clear from this post that you think that people who rob and murder will and do obey gun laws. They do here.... generally. The same can be said of Australia and Canada and most European countries. We have guns, just like you do. What we don't have is a gun culture like you have. Guns aren't so prolific and not so easily obtainable either. But for most people, if they wanted one, they can be bought legitimately. Why is it in the US that people don't give a shit about the gun laws? that is very interesting. So why do you think they obey gun laws but not laws regarding stealing and murder? Do you have stricter punishments for your gun laws? For example if someone killed another with a knife would they turn down the offer of a gun because that crosses some kind of line?

vincentML -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 9:16:46 AM)
quote: Again you are dense. Hillary has promised to virtually destroy the 2nd and to submit a Constitutional amendment to weaken the 1st, can the rest be far behind? Yeah, so I looked at the details of Hillary's gun control plan as reported in the links you provided. Nowhere do I see anything that remotely supports your hyperbolic claims that the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed or that the 1st will be weakened. Mostly, her plans are just common sense needed reforms. You might notice you repeated the link to the NRA propaganda. The link to her remarks about Heller is not functional. Otherwise, you just threw a bunch of shit against the wall. I don't see any specific links from her plan to the fearful claims that you made about the 1st and 2nd Amendments. There are none. That's why you can't produce any.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 10:54:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It is clear from this post that you think that people who rob and murder will and do obey gun laws. They do here.... generally. The same can be said of Australia and Canada and most European countries. We have guns, just like you do. What we don't have is a gun culture like you have. Guns aren't so prolific and not so easily obtainable either. But for most people, if they wanted one, they can be bought legitimately. Why is it in the US that people don't give a shit about the gun laws? that is very interesting. So why do you think they obey gun laws but not laws regarding stealing and murder? Do you have stricter punishments for your gun laws? For example if someone killed another with a knife would they turn down the offer of a gun because that crosses some kind of line? I don't know from first hand experience (not owning a gun and all), but apparently, there is a huge leap in custodial sentencing if a crime is committed with a gun. The 'offer of a gun' isn't likely here. There are so few guns available that it isn't likely to happen. But let's assume it happened..... A burglary with a knife as a weapon is likely to get you a caution, a suspended sentence, or at worst a short custodial spell (a few months maybe). However, the same scenario with a gun is likely to get you incarcerated for 5+ years without parole. They take a very dim view of crime with guns here and the harsh sentencing reflects that. The rewards have to be worth considering taking a gun (even if you don't use it) than not. The deterrent for guns is such that even the criminals think twice before having one on a job.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 10:58:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And as he does so often he proves my point, he wants us to get rid of guns so the police have to be our only protection while claiming the police gun down everyone they can. Speaks to the bias of the media. I do acknowledge that if it bleeds it leads, but you notice that the majority of the time when the police have to shoot someone it doesn't make the news. Apparently his critical thinking is not functioning or he would realize that if he were correct there would literally thousands of people shot by the police every year. Show me where I've made that claim bama!!! Go on, quote me the post where I said that. Oh, I didn't. As for media, the BBC is well known for being one of the most non-biased media on the planet. You can't say that about US media outlets. ETA: There were 1,146 people killed by police in the US in 2015. There are currently 846 killed in 2016 by police so far this year to September. That is on target for more than 1,100 killings this year. So yes, it IS more than a thousand each year so far. Source: The Guardian. That's almost 10x the total gun deaths in the UK for any one year.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 11:17:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Again you are dense. Hillary has promised to virtually destroy the 2nd and to submit a Constitutional amendment to weaken the 1st, can the rest be far behind? Yeah, so I looked at the details of Hillary's gun control plan as reported in the links you provided. Nowhere do I see anything that remotely supports your hyperbolic claims that the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed or that the 1st will be weakened. Mostly, her plans are just common sense needed reforms. You might notice you repeated the link to the NRA propaganda. The link to her remarks about Heller is not functional. Otherwise, you just threw a bunch of shit against the wall. I don't see any specific links from her plan to the fearful claims that you made about the 1st and 2nd Amendments. There are none. That's why you can't produce any. Overturning Heller will allow gun bans, they will then follow that people don't have the right to bear arms, once it is no longer a right it might as well not exist. How is your Kool Aid? When they allow harassment law suits how is that not a misuse of the courts? Again how is the coolaid ? Australian style confiscation is outright theft. How's the Koolaid?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 11:25:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Overturning Heller will allow gun bans, they will then follow that people don't have the right to bear arms, once it is no longer a right it might as well not exist. How is your Kool Aid? Oh... so banning vehicles not meeting DMV specs will lead to banning ALL vehicles. Coz that's what you are projecting on this. Sometimes bama, you really are myopically paranoid. Scratch that... not sometimes, most of the time. [8\|]

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 11:51:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Overturning Heller will allow gun bans, they will then follow that people don't have the right to bear arms, once it is no longer a right it might as well not exist. How is your Kool Aid? Oh... so banning vehicles not meeting DMV specs will lead to banning ALL vehicles. Coz that's what you are projecting on this. Sometimes bama, you really are myopically paranoid. Scratch that... not sometimes, most of the time. [8\|] You clearly don't know what you are talking about, as usual. The frivolous law suit I am talking about is as if they banned the kind of truck used in the terror attack in France (killing about 65 people) even though the truck was in perfect working condition. Then allowing the families of the victims to sue the company that built the truck because the terrorist misused their legal product. If you knew 10% of what you think you do you would know that a firearms company was driven out of business after this law was passed because they made unsafe products. The NRA was a plaintive in that case. Nobody, contrary to propaganda from your side, wants unsafe firearms being sold, but to sue a company because someone stole their product and then misused it is both ridiculous and stupid.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 12:04:47 PM)
In the case of Heller, the Supreme court ruled that handguns were "arms" and that DC were not able to ban them under their local laws as the 2nd amendment allowed ownership of them. Even if Hillary managed to overturn the Heller verdict, that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a wholesale banning of guns across the US - which is what you are suggesting in your post. It would allow individual states to introduce sensible restrictions. I don't think that's a bad thing. Unless of course, you are a gun nut that thinks they should have them regardless. Which, from your protestations, would be the group you fall into.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 12:37:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And as he does so often he proves my point, he wants us to get rid of guns so the police have to be our only protection while claiming the police gun down everyone they can. Speaks to the bias of the media. I do acknowledge that if it bleeds it leads, but you notice that the majority of the time when the police have to shoot someone it doesn't make the news. Apparently his critical thinking is not functioning or he would realize that if he were correct there would literally thousands of people shot by the police every year. Show me where I've made that claim bama!!! Go on, quote me the post where I said that. Oh, I didn't. As for media, the BBC is well known for being one of the most non-biased media on the planet. You can't say that about US media outlets. ETA: There were 1,146 people killed by police in the US in 2015. There are currently 846 killed in 2016 by police so far this year to September. That is on target for more than 1,100 killings this year. So yes, it IS more than a thousand each year so far. Source: The Guardian. That's almost 10x the total gun deaths in the UK for any one year. My God you have told us how much better off we would be if we got rid of guns. And then you tell us that the cops kill people without reason. Nobody who has ever read your posts on this subject would see you as believing that anyone should have a gun for self defense. You have in fact bragged about how is someone breaks into your home and you shoot them you are automatically charged with murder.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 12:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 In the case of Heller, the Supreme court ruled that handguns were "arms" and that DC were not able to ban them under their local laws as the 2nd amendment allowed ownership of them. Even if Hillary managed to overturn the Heller verdict, that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a wholesale banning of guns across the US - which is what you are suggesting in your post. It would allow individual states to introduce sensible restrictions. I don't think that's a bad thing. Unless of course, you are a gun nut that thinks they should have them regardless. Which, from your protestations, would be the group you fall into. Chicago and DC would instantly reinstate them in spite of the fact that they simple didn't work at all. Ca would most likely follow suit. You have never seen a gun law you didn't like. Regardless that covers a lot of territory and I have never met a person who would sign off on that. Those people only exist in your paranoid imagination. With Heller the states can pass "reasonable" regulation, but you would not consider the confiscation of handguns to be reasonable.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 1:01:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Chicago and DC would instantly reinstate them in spite of the fact that they simple didn't work at all. Ca would most likely follow suit. And you know this for certain, yes?? In which case, you should be able to cite it. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You have never seen a gun law you didn't like. Regardless that covers a lot of territory and I have never met a person who would sign off on that. Those people only exist in your paranoid imagination. Paranoid? Really? Who are the ones who don't trust their government enough to willingly give up their guns for a better country overall. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD With Heller the states can pass "reasonable" regulation, but you would not consider the confiscation of handguns to be reasonable. I think you meant "unreasonable" here. And no, I wouldn't consider it unreasonable if there was a reason for doing it. People like you don't think of the bigger picture. Too much individualism to think of the greater good for your country. That's why the US has such a messy and huge gun death record compared to everyone else.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 1:02:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD My God you have told us how much better off we would be if we got rid of guns. And then you tell us that the cops kill people without reason. Nobody who has ever read your posts on this subject would see you as believing that anyone should have a gun for self defense. You have in fact bragged about how is someone breaks into your home and you shoot them you are automatically charged with murder. I have never said they shoot without reason. Ever. That's YOUR spin on words, not mine. And, I don't say to get rid of guns - just have much stricter control of them. And yes, if you shoot someone and they die, you are on a murder charge. That is the law here. I don't write the laws.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 1:34:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD My God you have told us how much better off we would be if we got rid of guns. And then you tell us that the cops kill people without reason. Nobody who has ever read your posts on this subject would see you as believing that anyone should have a gun for self defense. You have in fact bragged about how is someone breaks into your home and you shoot them you are automatically charged with murder. I have never said they shoot without reason. Ever. That's YOUR spin on words, not mine. And, I don't say to get rid of guns - just have much stricter control of them. And yes, if you shoot someone and they die, you are on a murder charge. That is the law here. I don't write the laws. You said their first reaction is to go for their guns and that is why people can't trust the police. You don't write the laws but you do tell us how good they are. You refer to individualism as if it were a bad thing. Being sheep is worse.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 2:13:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You said their first reaction is to go for their guns and that is why people can't trust the police. That is how your police are trained. That's not my fault. There have been numerous high-profile police killings in the media where the cop shot someone where there was absolutely no need. I'm not saying that some didn't get their dues under the law but it just shows the mentality of quite a number in your police force generally. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You don't write the laws but you do tell us how good they are. Well... they seem to work for the most part. Even the criminals generally don't use guns here. So it must be making a difference. You can't say that about the US. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You refer to individualism as if it were a bad thing. Being sheep is worse. I agree - to a point. But to take individualism to the point where the country suffers as a whole is beyond ridiculous. That's where the US has gone horribly wrong on several issues. There's the guns for one. Then the high tax rates for another. And stupidly high cost of healthcare as a third. Sub-standard electric grid (compared to ours). GM products getting into the food chain for yet another. No uniform laws because there are different laws in different states; what's legal in one is illegal in another - that's plain stupid. But I do agree on one thing about the US.... Customer service is fucking brilliant compared to here and Europe. I can't fault it. And then there is cheap take-outs which often make it cheaper to eat out than to cook at home. So there are some good points about the US - it's not all bad.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Spam Policy

6.347656E-02