Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
[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: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 2:38:17 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 2:53:12 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		most of them are covered over. Like zimmerman, when one is dead there is only one side to the story.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 2:53:50 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 3:08:02 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline 		I don't think 1100 were all mistakes. That is probably the total number.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 3:11:10 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline 		It is, a total, I think.

But it's still a stupidly high number.
Almost 10x our total deaths by gun.


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 3:21:57 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline 		We have a lot of crazy people over here. I think they should start putting some lithium in the water.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 3:50:47 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 3:52:09 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 3:57:27 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 4:09:06 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 4:48:09 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 4:50:45 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 10/22/2016 4:56:23 PM >

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 5:39:47 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 6:01:37 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline 		It is true that given the demographic disparity it doesn't make sense to compare the UK and the US on issues like this.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 6:07:28 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 6:58:41 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 9:23:49 PM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by lovmuffin -- 10/22/2016 9:25:03 PM >

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to Dvr22999874)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 9:30:35 PM   
Dvr22999874


Posts: 2849
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to lovmuffin)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 9:48:22 PM   
lovmuffin


Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by lovmuffin -- 10/22/2016 9:52:23 PM >

_____________________________

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown

"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir

(in reply to igor2003)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have fire... - 10/22/2016 9:50:05 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Dvr22999874)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: How long after a ban will criminals still have firearms. Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094