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 2:38:17 PM)
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. Wrong again, it shows mistakes by a very small number of cops. And most of those bad shooting you hear about aren't going to be covered over there when the facts (as usually happens) turn out to be much deferent.

mnottertail -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 2:53:12 PM)
most of them are covered over. Like zimmerman, when one is dead there is only one side to the story.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 2:53:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 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. Wrong again, it shows mistakes by a very small number of cops. And most of those bad shooting you hear about aren't going to be covered over there when the facts (as usually happens) turn out to be much deferent. Over 1,100 deaths by cops for at least 2 years running is a very small number? I suppose compared to overall gun deaths, it's relatively small. Even so, it's a disgraceful number of deaths by cops no matter how you slice the cake.

tamaka -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 3:08:02 PM)
I don't think 1100 were all mistakes. That is probably the total number.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 3:11:10 PM)
It is, a total, I think. But it's still a stupidly high number. Almost 10x our total deaths by gun.

tamaka -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 3:21:57 PM)
We have a lot of crazy people over here. I think they should start putting some lithium in the water.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 3:50:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 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. Wrong again, it shows mistakes by a very small number of cops. And most of those bad shooting you hear about aren't going to be covered over there when the facts (as usually happens) turn out to be much deferent. Over 1,100 deaths by cops for at least 2 years running is a very small number? I suppose compared to overall gun deaths, it's relatively small. Even so, it's a disgraceful number of deaths by cops no matter how you slice the cake. Of those only a couple dozen are questionable as opposed to what the media wants you to think. The vast majority are because people use, or try to use weapons against police. It is disgraceful , not that the police kill so many but that so many attack the police. Did you know that 4 cops were killed in CA alone during the last two weeks? I doubt it because dead cops aren't a problem to the media. Look at the "bad shootings" recently. Charlotte shooting, the guy pulled a gun (which he could not legally own and was stolen) and refused to drop it, riot. Ca the guy went to a shooting stance (I guess you would like for them to wait so their wife could collect widows benefits) a clear cut case of suicide by cop, , riot. Ferguson, Brown had demonstrated he could do whatever he wanted to the cop, and apparently thought he was going to be arrested for the robbery he had just committed, riot. NY Gardner cop should have been charged with excessive force, Gardner died of a heart attack the cop got off because the prosecutor tried to score political points and went for murder one, before it even came to trial two cops were ambushed in revenge. Baltimore may well have been legitimate charges against the driver, riot (once again the prosecutor overcharged and charged too many people to get a conviction with the worst case of misconduct by a prosecutor since Duke). Shreveport the guy resisted arrest, and tried to pull a gun which it was illegal for him to own, then he was shot, seven Dallas cops killed in revenge. The riots killed far more people than the cops did. Bet you never heard the end story on any of these.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 3:52:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka I don't think 1100 were all mistakes. That is probably the total number. Of course not but what the hey a killing by a cop is a killing by a cop.

vincentML -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 3:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 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? Heller is not the controlling case. After Heller, SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applicable to the States thru the 14th Amendment in McDonald vs City of Chicago You should note that in Heller carried through to McDonald the Court approved hand guns as appropriate "arms" for protection in the home. The Court did not give you license to carry your widow-maker/child-killer anywhere you wish. Hillary has not called for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Nor can Supreme Court judges appointed by her overturn a Constitutional Amendment. Harassment law suits are expensive and time consuming. The likelihood of anyone filing one against the NRA-backed gun manufacturers is limited. Show me somewhere that Hillary said anything about following the Australian model. Your paranoia apparently knows no bounds.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 4:09:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka I don't think 1100 were all mistakes. That is probably the total number. Of course not but what the hey a killing by a cop is a killing by a cop. When the killings by cop, legal or otherwise, outnumber the total gun deaths of another country by almost a whole order of magnitude - that is disgraceful. And I know you're come back with the US being a bigger country with more people. So do the maths..... The US has approx 5.2x the population of the UK. On an equal score, your gun deaths should be around 5.2x - but they aren't. You have almost 10x the deaths JUST BY COPS than our entire total gun deaths. That is absolutely deplorable and unforgivable. But of course, you think most are justified. In most cases, even those that are deemed 'justified', could have been done differently and avoided a death.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 4:48:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 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? Heller is not the controlling case. After Heller, SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applicable to the States thru the 14th Amendment in McDonald vs City of Chicago You should note that in Heller carried through to McDonald the Court approved hand guns as appropriate "arms" for protection in the home. The Court did not give you license to carry your widow-maker/child-killer anywhere you wish. Hillary has not called for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Nor can Supreme Court judges appointed by her overturn a Constitutional Amendment. Harassment law suits are expensive and time consuming. The likelihood of anyone filing one against the NRA-backed gun manufacturers is limited. Show me somewhere that Hillary said anything about following the Australian model. Your paranoia apparently knows no bounds. No but she does want justices who will rule that the right to bear arms is not an individual right. And if you redefine it enough it becomes wall paper which she does want to do. The courts have ruled that you have to allow either open or concealed carry. I already did, you must not have read it.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 4:50:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka I don't think 1100 were all mistakes. That is probably the total number. Of course not but what the hey a killing by a cop is a killing by a cop. When the killings by cop, legal or otherwise, outnumber the total gun deaths of another country by almost a whole order of magnitude - that is disgraceful. And I know you're come back with the US being a bigger country with more people. So do the maths..... The US has approx 5.2x the population of the UK. On an equal score, your gun deaths should be around 5.2x - but they aren't. You have almost 10x the deaths JUST BY COPS than our entire total gun deaths. That is absolutely deplorable and unforgivable. But of course, you think most are justified. In most cases, even those that are deemed 'justified', could have been done differently and avoided a death. Knife death is just as dead. Of course they could all have ended without the cops killing anyone, the only difference would be a few hundred more dead cops, but that would be ok wouldn't it. No I was not going to say we have a much larger population than you do but we have a much different society than you do, remember we have over 12 million illegals who come from a country with tougher gun control than your island paradise and triple our murder rate. These people were not exactly in upper crust in their country. On top of that we have a group of people who have been fed victimization since they were babies and have been told they are entitled to take anything they want.

mnottertail -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 5:39:47 PM)
Whitman, et al, could not have knifed as many to their deaths. You have been a welfare patient since a baby, and your mother, and her mother and so on. You wouldnt know victimization any more than you would know about education, or intelligence, or fact.

tamaka -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 6:01:37 PM)
It is true that given the demographic disparity it doesn't make sense to compare the UK and the US on issues like this.

thompsonx -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 6:07:28 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD The courts have ruled that you have to allow either open or concealed carry. I already did, you must not have read it. Not exactly, as the discussion betwixt mr k and myself clearly indicated.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 6:58:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD 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? Heller is not the controlling case. After Heller, SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applicable to the States thru the 14th Amendment in McDonald vs City of Chicago You should note that in Heller carried through to McDonald the Court approved hand guns as appropriate "arms" for protection in the home. The Court did not give you license to carry your widow-maker/child-killer anywhere you wish. Hillary has not called for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Nor can Supreme Court judges appointed by her overturn a Constitutional Amendment. Harassment law suits are expensive and time consuming. The likelihood of anyone filing one against the NRA-backed gun manufacturers is limited. Show me somewhere that Hillary said anything about following the Australian model. Your paranoia apparently knows no bounds. You don't have to explain the relationship between Heller and McDonald, it is Hillary who seems to be confused. They may be expensive but the law was passed because Chicago and several other Dem run cities were filing, that was why the bill was passed.

lovmuffin -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 9:23:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 lovmuffin...........you are surely right there. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of weapons hidden away in this country but again, as has been said, we don't seem to get the shootings and killings every day that America seems to get, but thinking back, I wonder if we ever did ? Nowadays it seems that only the crims have guns that they use or wave around. The other illegal gun owners are still crims in the eyes of the law, but they keep their weapons for their own uses and because they admire the weapons for what they are, not for what they actually do. I know of a guy not far from here who has an old WW2 MG42 and yes, it is a magnificent piece of machinery that he keeps to admire and maybe fire in the bush now and again. It is terrifying to watch him cut a tree down with it. That's a good question(bold part). Not only that but I don't recall a whole lot of Port Arthur types of mass shootings in the past before your draconian gun laws. However if some crazy ass wants to go shoot the place up with a banned firearm or even a politically correct firearm and kill a bunch of people, it could very well happen despite the gun laws.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 9:30:35 PM)
Yep,very true lovmuffin and really, it's not that difficult to obtain a firearm of some sort or another here. You just need to have a criminal bent I guess or know a few crims or those on the fringes. And as you said, if some crazy wants to kill people, you can still buy weedkiller and sugar or just look under the kitchen sink..........there is a whole chemlab of lethal shit there. A little petrol, some condes crystals and you have the basic ingredients of some amazing fireworks.

lovmuffin -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 9:48:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 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? That's the same kind of sputum that right wing scare mongers and talking heads have been spreading for the last 8 years against Obama, and none of it has come true. Unless you have a cite from a credible source I can only see this as more bullshit. But I have an open mind. Just prove what you say. Actually, the other Clinton half who doesn't wear the pant suit came real close with his stupid assault weapon ban. Of course the worst effect of it was the magazine limitation. The absurd ban on bayonet lugs and semi auto firearm cosmetics was only an annoyance. Thankfully the law was allowed to sunset. Because of Clinton's stupid ban, a Republican ban proof majority was elected to the House of Representatives that is still a ban proof majority...............at least for now. If any kind of gun control, no matter how severe, could pass both houses of Congress, the bitch would sign off on it and will have tipped the balance of the Supreme Court to uphold it. Bama is correct.

BamaD -> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. (10/22/2016 9:50:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 Yep,very true lovmuffin and really, it's not that difficult to obtain a firearm of some sort or another here. You just need to have a criminal bent I guess or know a few crims or those on the fringes. And as you said, if some crazy wants to kill people, you can still buy weedkiller and sugar or just look under the kitchen sink..........there is a whole chemlab of lethal shit there. A little petrol, some condes crystals and you have the basic ingredients of some amazing fireworks. Our crime rate has always (unfortunately) been much higher than yours or the UK's. This goes back to the beginning of our country. And since we cater to the most uncivilized portions of our society I doubt that it is going to get better in the near future.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.0625