Some gun related questions for liberals:

Which doesn't negate my post in the slightest.

 

Government telling women what they can do is every bit as controlling as telling them what they can't do. They are in charge either way. Some Republicans think abortion after a certain time is taking a human life and like they agree murder is criminal they criminalize those abortions. IMO many Republicans (and some Democrats) go too far on that point but that is just my opinion, and it is hotly debated with no clear and obvious answers.

 

You post negated itself. If gun control laws worked, the laws on the books would be good enough. But, the objective isn't safety, or reduction in violence. It's to ban gun ownership across the board. The people pulling these laws out of their asses know these laws won't work. They're designed to fail.

 

and when the next "reasonable " "common sense" law fails, the gun banners already are ready with another.

it is how they work-pass a law-and if crime goes down for any reason, they claim that is proof another law will decrease crime even more. If crime doesn't go down, they claim it is because there were not enough laws passed

they want UBGCs which they know will fail without complete registration: why-to push for complete registration

 

Nope.

 

Your comment doesn't make sense.
It doesn't matter what I want. My point is that any determined and violent killer will still succeed in killing a large number of people with or without a gun.
The violence and the determination to kill are the problems to be addressed. Guns are only one of many objects that can be used to kill just one person or many people as the examples I provided have shown.

In both examples I showed the killer succeeded in killing more people without a gun than in similar situations in which the killer did have a gun.

People were killing each other long before guns were invented and they manage to kill each other at a higher rate in over 50 countries around the world that prohibit private gun ownership so more feel-good-do-nothing gun bans are not going to make anyone safer.

Thanks,

 

Huh? How are laws banning abortion telling women what they can do?

Of course, abortion is taking a human life, but who makes the decision about a woman's pregnancy is also important. If government makes the most important decisions in a woman's life, she has no freedom.

The obvious answer is the woman decides.

 

No, it is not obvious in the least. If it was obvious there would be very little debate, let alone inflamed debate. Pregnant or not many feel a woman does not have a right to kill an actual human being. Like if I kill a neighbor that is infringing on my property I go to the electric chair. The unobvious question is when is a fetus an actual human being.

 

Pregnant women do have that right if they're not second class citizens. As you might note, there is no mention of a fetus, baby, unborn, mother, woman, birth, child or abortion in the Constitution. The Founders did not consider the status of a fetus.

Law banning abortion always violated women's rights.

In terms of the Constitution, the fetus has no rights. Only born persons have rights.

If anti-abortionists want to restrict women's rights, they should amend the Constitution instead of packing the Court with activist Justices.

 

Which STILL does not negate the fact that guns are what is most used no matter how much you want it to.

 

And when determined mass killers can't find a gun they simply use any number of far deadlier, cheap and easy to make WMDs:

"Happy Land fire"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED

 

Which STILL does not negate the fact that guns are what is most used no matter how much you want it to.

 

You just said a pregnant woman, unlike anyone else, has a right to kill a human life. That is astounding. It puts pissant so-called made up "rights" above fundamental rights. The Constitution is totally silent about unborn humans, fetuses, abortion, etc and nothing can be interpreted about the Constitution if the Constitution says nothing about it, There is nothing in the Constitution that says it is referring to only born persons. BTW, this is why Roe v Wade is a faulty ruling: the Constitutions says nothing so therefore the SCOTUS has no say about it one way or another.

 

Gun ownership has increased in CA and rock wool doesn't stop buckshot.

 

How can something that is undefined be legally banned?

 

Yeah, congress's syntax and use of commas left a bit to be desired when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

 

Seems like that would solve the problem, doesn't it? Fortify the schools. But some people want every citizen disarmed instead. Why? Is it possible that some people don't want the school shootings to stop? Because every one is an opportunity to try to get a total gun ban. If no more school shootings occurred, these opportunities would go away.

 

Banning guns w/o confiscating guns means there are still 423,000,000 guns in the US.
Thus, guns will still be widely available, legally or otherwise; and thus, no effect on the number of shootings.

 

You understand this is a non-seq fallacy - right?

 

Why would I agree to that, and why do you think it will have any effect on shootings, mass or otherwise?

 

BUSINESS AS USUAL, THEN: Biden’s Gun Control Push Combines Slipperiness With Self-Righteous Certitude: The president implies that anyone who resists his agenda is complicit in the murder of innocents.

We've never had a bigger butthole as president.

President Butthole.
​

President Butthole "says he wants Democrats and Republicans to join together in responding to mass shootings. Yet the speech he delivered last night was suffused with the off-putting, aggressive self-righteousness that Democrats routinely display when they push new restrictions on" on freedoms, rights and liberties."Again and again, Biden implied that anyone who questions or resists the policy solutions he favors is complicit in the murder of innocents. As he frames the issue, there is no room for honest disagreement about the merits of those proposals, which are self-evidently the right thing to do."

It's like trying to have a reasonable conversation with a low IQ cult member. First they are too close-minded, and even if they weren't they are so stupid that they are unable to evaluate any other point of view and compare it to their own. They memorized what their position is, shut their eyes, ears and mind tight and push. They have no other play or ability.

"That attitude is not exactly conducive to building the bipartisan consensus that Biden claims he wants. Nor is Biden's egregiously misleading deployment of the facts that he says demonstrate the urgency and effectiveness of the laws he supports. Biden does not want a rational, empirically informed debate about the costs and benefits of those laws. He prefers emotion to logic, and he demands that everyone else—including the Republicans he accuses of callous indifference to mass murder—do the same."

The armed felon gangs that operate openly in our cities only do so because the leaders in those cities are on their payroll, and because the leaders and the felons are part of the Political Left, you'll see none of them in leg irons, or even arrested for the most part. You can predict Dems gun regulations in advance, it will disarm Republicans while doing next to nothing to disarm the illegally armed deadly felons that commit the vast majority of the murders.

For example:

"The perpetrators of the three recent mass shootings all passed background checks, which means they did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Biden mentions six other mass shootings. The expanded requirement that he wants Congress to enact would not have made a difference in any of those cases, because the perpetrators either passed background checks or obtained guns from others who bought them legally—a parent in one case and older friends in another."

Those who traffic guns to felons do not and will not comply with any expanded background check. "Private transfers are both common and generally invisible to the government, effectively enforcing that law would be impossible. The upshot is that would-be mass killers would have little trouble arming themselves even if they could not pass a background check. A 2019 study found that California's 1991 expansion of background checks "was not associated with a net change in the firearm homicide rate over the ensuing 10 years."

And that's the way it always is with Dems gun regulations, it burdens the rights of law abiding gun owners who are largely Republicans while doing next to nothing to disarm violent deadly felons who are part of the Left's political coalition.

"Likewise with the renewed federal ban on "assault weapons" that Biden has long favored. He does not want to talk about the details of that legislation, which would reveal that the category of firearms it targets is defined by functionally unimportant features such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. He does not want to address the basic problem with such laws: They leave untouched guns that fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity as the prohibited models."

It burdens the rights of law abiding gun owners who are largely Republicans while doing next to nothing to disarm violent deadly felons who are part of the Left's political coalition.

"The "assault weapon" ban "targets a relatively small number of weapons based on features that have little to do with the weapons' operation, and removing those features is sufficient to make the weapons legal." Biden himself has conceded that the 1994 ban did not affect the lethality of legally available firearms, noting that it allowed the sale of guns that were "just as deadly." That is also true of the new, supposedly improved version that Biden is pushing."

It burdens the rights of law abiding gun owners who are largely Republicans while doing next to nothing to disarm violent deadly felons who are part of the Left's political coalition.

40 times as many children drown in each year in swimming pools. We'll gladly work with Dems on legislation that is actually beneficial, but, we will not join in their farce of a "solution" that merely burdens the rights of law abiding citizens while doing next to nothing to actually disarm the illegally armed felons that commit the vast majority of the murders each year.

 

Deflection Alert!

You saw the bumper sticker on their cars—several of them, no less. The same sticker.

 

We're a nation of laws. The fetus has no legal standing in terms of the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade is being struck down because it supposedly invented women's rights when in fact early courts invented personhood rights for the fetus.

There is no reference to unborn persons.

No, the woman has rights to control her own body.

 

City leaders are all bought? Oh, please. Now, I don't happen to agree with going easy on perps, especially not on violent perps, but your claim ignores their political views.

This is BS straight out of far right echo chamber. You should know better.

How about firearms licenses for gun owners?

 

Unconstitutional. Felons cannot legally own firearms-what would this do to stop them?