Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

Lucky Luke wrote: Numb wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Jefferson wrote:

Sounds to me like it is time to use guns and get then back. Why? No else is going to get them back? Right? Is the UN going to come over and get them for me? Or do I need to take them back myself?

You are mistaken Jefferson, I'll correct you. We are only talking about stricter gun control laws that The Comrade found borderline unconstitutional. Get the gun down Jefferson, slowly and for crying out loud breath!

:-D
:-D
Stricter as in how?

Applying the same restrictions you have for CCW laws to the possession of firearms and closing the loopholes that allow all criminals to buy guns from unregulated sale outlets and private individuals.

:-D
:-D

Criminals already are not allowed to buy guns from private individuals--it is a felony. There is no such thing as an "unregulated sales outlet" except for private individuals. A company that sells guns to anybody without a license is breaking the law.

[lilwolf]

LL, if a criminal gets caught trying to buy a gun from a legal source he goes away, and perdidochas is saying the same thing that I have been trying to tell you.

I also tried to tell you that criminals buying guns from private parties is illegal and also that if you as a private citizen sell "knowingly" to a criminal then you are going away as well.

Also, any business that does it is doing it against the law and they lose their business (risk of) as well as who ever did the transaction is going away....

That works for us..it keeps the guns from the bad guys. You cannot start legislating private parties in that it crosses rights to privacy and there would be no way to even make that work.

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Comrade let's see you answer this question now.


How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice a year, every year, year after year in order up to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional?

:-D
:-D

I'd say up to about 15 per 100,000. Since we are at a little more than a third of that (a little under 6, per 100,000), let's leave things alone.

If you are ready to sacrifice 15 American lives to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional, you should start from a rate of 3 per 100,000, one of the highest murder rate for western democratic countries. You would then get a murder rate of 18 per 100,000, 12 more per 100,000 than today.

That would be 36,000 more murders of American people per year, 180,000 after 5 years, 1 million after 30 years, a million of American people who should be living and are not, worst than any war America has been involved in, worst than all wars America has been involved in last century!

This is what you are ready to sacrifice Perdidochas to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

We still keep our guns and not to likey that anyone is going to give them up any time soon.

Not legal gun owners anyway..... :lol:

[perdidochas]

Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Comrade let's see you answer this question now.


How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice a year, every year, year after year in order up to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional?

:-D
:-D

I'd say up to about 15 per 100,000. Since we are at a little more than a third of that (a little under 6, per 100,000), let's leave things alone.

If you are ready to sacrifice 15 American lives to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional, you should start from a rate of 3 per 100,000, one of the highest murder rate for western democratic countries. You would then get a murder rate of 18 per 100,000, 12 more per 100,000 than today.

That would be 36,000 more murders of American people per year, 180,000 after 5 years, 1 million after 30 years, a million of American people who should be living and are not, worst than any war America has been involved in, worst than all wars America has been involved in last century!

This is what you are ready to sacrifice Perdidochas to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional.

Actually, it's not what I'm sacrificing. Since I am not committing (nor do I ever intend to commit) any murders, I am not part of the problem. The problem is primarily people who are criminals anyway. They tend to kill other criminals. The murder rate of average law abiding citizens who aren't committing crimes is probably in that 2-3 range that you tout as the ideal maximum. When I read about murdered people in the paper, I don't read about John the Accountant being murdered by his customer the plumber. I read about John Doe, person who's got a record of several violent criminal acts, killing his girlfriend, or the drifter that's smoking crack cocaine killing the old man he was travelling with.

ALso, I didn't say 15 more, I said 15. I lived in this country when our murder rate was in the 10-11 per 100k range (1980s and very early 1990s). I can live with that. 15 isn't much different.

Also, there are other things we could do that would reduce the murder rate much faster--just deny criminals the right to a fair trial, or change the rules of evidence and allow policemen to search people/houses at will. I'm not willing to allow that to stop crime, similarly, I'm not willing to let guns be banned.

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Numb wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Jefferson wrote:

Sounds to me like it is time to use guns and get then back. Why? No else is going to get them back? Right? Is the UN going to come over and get them for me? Or do I need to take them back myself?

You are mistaken Jefferson, I'll correct you. We are only talking about stricter gun control laws that The Comrade found borderline unconstitutional. Get the gun down Jefferson, slowly and for crying out loud breath!

:-D
:-D
Stricter as in how?

Applying the same restrictions you have for CCW laws to the possession of firearms and closing the loopholes that allow all criminals to buy guns from unregulated sale outlets and private individuals.

:-D
:-D

Criminals already are not allowed to buy guns from private individuals--it is a felony. There is no such thing as an "unregulated sales outlet" except for private individuals. A company that sells guns to anybody without a license is breaking the law.

That is very good of you to place all your trust on criminals not to buy their guns privately. Why bother with restrictions on gun dealers, you could trust criminals not to buy from them too? In fact your theory could be extended to all crimes, let's trust the criminals to commit none and we will live in a perfect world, or would we Perdidochas?

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Numb wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Jefferson wrote:

Sounds to me like it is time to use guns and get then back. Why? No else is going to get them back? Right? Is the UN going to come over and get them for me? Or do I need to take them back myself?

You are mistaken Jefferson, I'll correct you. We are only talking about stricter gun control laws that The Comrade found borderline unconstitutional. Get the gun down Jefferson, slowly and for crying out loud breath!

:-D
:-D
Stricter as in how?

Applying the same restrictions you have for CCW laws to the possession of firearms and closing the loopholes that allow all criminals to buy guns from unregulated sale outlets and private individuals.

:-D
:-D

Criminals already are not allowed to buy guns from private individuals--it is a felony. There is no such thing as an "unregulated sales outlet" except for private individuals. A company that sells guns to anybody without a license is breaking the law.

That is very good of you to place all your trust on criminals not to buy their guns privately. Why bother with restrictions on gun dealers, you could trust criminals not to buy from them too? In fact your theory could be extended to all crimes, let's trust the criminals to commit none and we will live in a perfect world, or would we Perdidochas?

:-D
:-D


seems sarcasm works well also.... People that intentionally sell go to jail.
There that is pretty clear LL. Be logical here okay.

[perdidochas]

Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Numb wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Jefferson wrote:

Sounds to me like it is time to use guns and get then back. Why? No else is going to get them back? Right? Is the UN going to come over and get them for me? Or do I need to take them back myself?

You are mistaken Jefferson, I'll correct you. We are only talking about stricter gun control laws that The Comrade found borderline unconstitutional. Get the gun down Jefferson, slowly and for crying out loud breath!

:-D
:-D
Stricter as in how?

Applying the same restrictions you have for CCW laws to the possession of firearms and closing the loopholes that allow all criminals to buy guns from unregulated sale outlets and private individuals.

:-D
:-D

Criminals already are not allowed to buy guns from private individuals--it is a felony. There is no such thing as an "unregulated sales outlet" except for private individuals. A company that sells guns to anybody without a license is breaking the law.

That is very good of you to place all your trust on criminals not to buy their guns privately. Why bother with restrictions on gun dealers, you could trust criminals not to buy from them too? In fact your theory could be extended to all crimes, let's trust the criminals to commit none and we will live in a perfect world, or would we Perdidochas?

:-D
:-D

It's up to the private gun seller to be responsible. I know if I were to ever sell a gun privately, I would not do so to anybody that I didn't know personally. In the past, I've seen private people at gun shows refuse to sell their guns to other people, due to this kind of caution. However, that said, I'm against the regulation of such, because it will also preclude me from easily handing my guns down to my sons, or from, say, trading with my brothers. It's also the first step towards British style fascist gun control. Also, practically, how are criminals going to be stopped from getting a gun, from strawman purchases. The strawmen are already breaking the law. How will an additional requirement change things for anybody but the law-abiding? Let's say, we change to a California style law, where the only legal transfers of guns between private parties is through a gun dealer (most of whom charge between $25 and $50 to do so, from what I've read). Let's say, before the law passed, John Smith was buying guns legally and then turned around and sold guns in private sales at inflated prices to questionable people. He has reasonable suspicion to believe that they are criminals, and he's ignoring that law. If the law requires him to transfer to a dealer, do you think he's going to obey the transfership by dealer law? Of course not. The only people to be affected will be people like me, who will obey the law regardless. What's the use?

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: LL, if a criminal gets caught trying to buy a gun from a legal source he goes away, and perdidochas is saying the same thing that I have been trying to tell you.

I also tried to tell you that criminals buying guns from private parties is illegal and also that if you as a private citizen sell "knowingly" to a criminal then you are going away as well.

Also, any business that does it is doing it against the law and they lose their business (risk of) as well as who ever did the transaction is going away....

That works for us..it keeps the guns from the bad guys. You cannot start legislating private parties in that it crosses rights to privacy and there would be no way to even make that work.

Why not applying the same rule to gun dealers Lilwolf, what is the difference may I ask?
If the judgement of a private citizen is good enough for the law not to intervene surely the judgement of a gun dealer should be accepted the same way.
The point is that guns are not kept away from the bad guys like you call them just now, so what can be done Lilwolf?

I would I thought that the priority would be to keep guns away from your bad guys, then and only then to make arrangements to not cross the right of privacy.

There is a good example just now, the US asked after 9/11 to get every personal details available on foreigners coming to America. Everyone accepted straight away to make air travel to America safe and now foreign countries are asking for amendments to protect individual rights. Safety doesn't mean that our rights are worthless, it just means that we have to accept that they are put on hold until a compromise is made between the right to life and individual rights, that's all. I was quite happy to comply just after 9/11 but I believe now that my personal rights should not be ignored and a compromise should be reached.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: We still keep our guns and not to likey that anyone is going to give them up any time soon.

Not legal gun owners anyway..... :lol:

They did, in New Orleans, you are too late Lilwolf.

:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: LL, if a criminal gets caught trying to buy a gun from a legal source he goes away, and perdidochas is saying the same thing that I have been trying to tell you.

I also tried to tell you that criminals buying guns from private parties is illegal and also that if you as a private citizen sell "knowingly" to a criminal then you are going away as well.

Also, any business that does it is doing it against the law and they lose their business (risk of) as well as who ever did the transaction is going away....

That works for us..it keeps the guns from the bad guys. You cannot start legislating private parties in that it crosses rights to privacy and there would be no way to even make that work.

Why not applying the same rule to gun dealers Lilwolf, what is the difference may I ask?
If the judgement of a private citizen is good enough for the law not to intervene surely the judgement of a gun dealer should be accepted the same way.
The point is that guns are not kept away from the bad guys like you call them just now, so what can be done Lilwolf?

I would I thought that the priority would be to keep guns away from your bad guys, then and only then to make arrangements to not cross the right of privacy.

There is a good example just now, the US asked after 9/11 to get every personal details available on foreigners coming to America. Everyone accepted straight away to make air travel to America safe and now foreign countries are asking for amendments to protect individual rights. Safety doesn't mean that our rights are worthless, it just means that we have to accept that they are put on hold until a compromise is made between the right to life and individual rights, that's all. I was quite happy to comply just after 9/11 but I believe now that my personal rights should not be ignored and a compromise should be reached.
:-D
:-D


The laws are already applied to gun dealers LL. They have a miriad of paper work that has to be kept. There are already instant back ground checks and a long list of reasons a person is disqualified.

If you are thinking that the laws be removed for sales....that is just ignorant. No one wants the bad guys to have guns and like has been said here numerous times, you sell a gun to a criminal knowingly you are going to jail. The guy that bought the gun and he turns out to be a criminal he goes to jail.
Works pretty good.

No system is 100% perfect and that is a fact. The number of rejections for people applying legally to buy is really quite a lot. With out looking it up I would venture to say several hundred thousand bad guys ahve been prevented from purchase.

Riding on an airplane does not involve the 2nd. But if they have bad guys terrorists that want on board a plane, I have no problem asking them who and what.

Provacy issues on foreigners is an ugly thing yes, but considering that we got hit and will again there are legit precautions that have to be made.


As for N.O. they have gotten their guns back but that is an entirely different issue and the screw up by nagin and the police clown are still not out of the wtaer as yet. They could still be indicted for grand theft, violation of constitutional rights and a whole bunch of other things. He has not been granted a pardon and will not be.
That is why the law that prevents this from ever happening again has been brought on line. They violated the law and they had no authority to do so.

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Comrade let's see you answer this question now.


How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice a year, every year, year after year in order up to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional?

:-D
:-D

I'd say up to about 15 per 100,000. Since we are at a little more than a third of that (a little under 6, per 100,000), let's leave things alone.

If you are ready to sacrifice 15 American lives to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional, you should start from a rate of 3 per 100,000, one of the highest murder rate for western democratic countries. You would then get a murder rate of 18 per 100,000, 12 more per 100,000 than today.

That would be 36,000 more murders of American people per year, 180,000 after 5 years, 1 million after 30 years, a million of American people who should be living and are not, worst than any war America has been involved in, worst than all wars America has been involved in last century!

This is what you are ready to sacrifice Perdidochas to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional.

Actually, it's not what I'm sacrificing. Since I am not committing (nor do I ever intend to commit) any murders, I am not part of the problem. The problem is primarily people who are criminals anyway. They tend to kill other criminals. The murder rate of average law abiding citizens who aren't committing crimes is probably in that 2-3 range that you tout as the ideal maximum. When I read about murdered people in the paper, I don't read about John the Accountant being murdered by his customer the plumber. I read about John Doe, person who's got a record of several violent criminal acts, killing his girlfriend, or the drifter that's smoking crack cocaine killing the old man he was travelling with.

ALso, I didn't say 15 more, I said 15. I lived in this country when our murder rate was in the 10-11 per 100k range (1980s and very early 1990s). I can live with that. 15 isn't much different.

Also, there are other things we could do that would reduce the murder rate much faster--just deny criminals the right to a fair trial, or change the rules of evidence and allow policemen to search people/houses at will. I'm not willing to allow that to stop crime, similarly, I'm not willing to let guns be banned.

The question was how many American lives would you be ready to sacrifice to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional, you attempted to answer it without success. I just wanted to remind you of what the question was.

As an American not only you are part of the problem but part of the solution too. Those are laws for all Americans to reduce the insane murder rate of all Americans.

It seems you are ready to get rid of a lot of personal rights to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional. What you describe is a police state in a totalitarian regime, all that for you to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional, are sure it is what you want?
:-D
:-D

[perdidochas]

Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Comrade let's see you answer this question now.


How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice a year, every year, year after year in order up to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional?

:-D
:-D

I'd say up to about 15 per 100,000. Since we are at a little more than a third of that (a little under 6, per 100,000), let's leave things alone.

If you are ready to sacrifice 15 American lives to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional, you should start from a rate of 3 per 100,000, one of the highest murder rate for western democratic countries. You would then get a murder rate of 18 per 100,000, 12 more per 100,000 than today.

That would be 36,000 more murders of American people per year, 180,000 after 5 years, 1 million after 30 years, a million of American people who should be living and are not, worst than any war America has been involved in, worst than all wars America has been involved in last century!

This is what you are ready to sacrifice Perdidochas to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional.

Actually, it's not what I'm sacrificing. Since I am not committing (nor do I ever intend to commit) any murders, I am not part of the problem. The problem is primarily people who are criminals anyway. They tend to kill other criminals. The murder rate of average law abiding citizens who aren't committing crimes is probably in that 2-3 range that you tout as the ideal maximum. When I read about murdered people in the paper, I don't read about John the Accountant being murdered by his customer the plumber. I read about John Doe, person who's got a record of several violent criminal acts, killing his girlfriend, or the drifter that's smoking crack cocaine killing the old man he was travelling with.

ALso, I didn't say 15 more, I said 15. I lived in this country when our murder rate was in the 10-11 per 100k range (1980s and very early 1990s). I can live with that. 15 isn't much different.

Also, there are other things we could do that would reduce the murder rate much faster--just deny criminals the right to a fair trial, or change the rules of evidence and allow policemen to search people/houses at will. I'm not willing to allow that to stop crime, similarly, I'm not willing to let guns be banned.

The question was how many American lives would you be ready to sacrifice to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional, you attempted to answer it without success. I just wanted to remind you of what the question was.

:-D
:-D
As an American not only you are part of the problem but part of the solution too. Those are laws for all Americans to reduce the insane murder rate of all Americans.

It seems you are ready to get rid of a lot of personnal rights to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional. What you describe is a police state in a totalitarian regime, all that for you to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional, are sure it is what you want?

:-D
:-D

My point was that it's all the same. The police state tactics are a violation of our Bill of Rights as much as the banning of guns is. If you are against one, you should be against the other. If the issue is safety, why not give in? After all, if we do all of that--ban guns, decrease civil liberties, etc., we will have no crime.

Again, my point is that getting rid of liberty in exchange for safety isn't worth it.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote:

seems sarcasm works well also.... People that intentionally sell go to jail.
There that is pretty clear LL. Be logical here okay.

Then why having law for gun dealers and different ones for private citizens?

Let's decide that gun dealers who intentionally sell to criminals go to jail just like with private sellers Lilwolf. Why trusting more private citizens not to sell to criminals than gun dealers Lilwolf?
:-D
:-D

[BastionOfSanity]

How the f**k is a ninth grader already pissed off enough at their principal to shoot them? We've been in school for a month. Maybe 2 for some.

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote:

seems sarcasm works well also.... People that intentionally sell go to jail.
There that is pretty clear LL. Be logical here okay.

Then why having law for gun dealers and different ones for private citizens?

Let's decide that gun dealers who intentionally sell to criminals go to jail just like with private sellers Lilwolf. Why trusting more private citizens not to sell to criminals than gun dealers Lilwolf?
:-D
:-D

Laws govern business aspects of gun sales and do not regulate what a person does in private sales. Federal laws are what they are and they are working pretty good.
There really is a lot of precautions that people take when selling a gun.
I bought a pre ban AK the other day, and I signed a paper that the seller wnated so he could turn it in to show sales transfer. Not everyone does that but it was his choice and I had no problem.

There is no logical answer to the second part of your question. Rephrase it into something that is not a catch 22 okay and I might try it on (might LL).
As long as it is not one of your usual spin games you love so much.

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote:

It's up to the private gun seller to be responsible. I know if I were to ever sell a gun privately, I would not do so to anybody that I didn't know personally. In the past, I've seen private people at gun shows refuse to sell their guns to other people, due to this kind of caution. However, that said, I'm against the regulation of such, because it will also preclude me from easily handing my guns down to my sons, or from, say, trading with my brothers. It's also the first step towards British style fascist gun control. Also, practically, how are criminals going to be stopped from getting a gun, from strawman purchases. The strawmen are already breaking the law. How will an additional requirement change things for anybody but the law-abiding? Let's say, we change to a California style law, where the only legal transfers of guns between private parties is through a gun dealer (most of whom charge between $25 and $50 to do so, from what I've read). Let's say, before the law passed, John Smith was buying guns legally and then turned around and sold guns in private sales at inflated prices to questionable people. He has reasonable suspicion to believe that they are criminals, and he's ignoring that law. If the law requires him to transfer to a dealer, do you think he's going to obey the transfership by dealer law? Of course not. The only people to be affected will be people like me, who will obey the law regardless. What's the use?

Again you say it is up to the private gun seller to be responsible and yet you are denying the same thing to the gun dealer, why?

One minute you say you are against the regulation then you tell us people should be trusted to follow it except gun dealers that is.

What do you propose?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote:

It's up to the private gun seller to be responsible. I know if I were to ever sell a gun privately, I would not do so to anybody that I didn't know personally. In the past, I've seen private people at gun shows refuse to sell their guns to other people, due to this kind of caution. However, that said, I'm against the regulation of such, because it will also preclude me from easily handing my guns down to my sons, or from, say, trading with my brothers. It's also the first step towards British style fascist gun control. Also, practically, how are criminals going to be stopped from getting a gun, from strawman purchases. The strawmen are already breaking the law. How will an additional requirement change things for anybody but the law-abiding? Let's say, we change to a California style law, where the only legal transfers of guns between private parties is through a gun dealer (most of whom charge between $25 and $50 to do so, from what I've read). Let's say, before the law passed, John Smith was buying guns legally and then turned around and sold guns in private sales at inflated prices to questionable people. He has reasonable suspicion to believe that they are criminals, and he's ignoring that law. If the law requires him to transfer to a dealer, do you think he's going to obey the transfership by dealer law? Of course not. The only people to be affected will be people like me, who will obey the law regardless. What's the use?

Again you say it is up to the private gun seller to be responsible and yet you are denying the same thing to the gun dealer, why?

One minute you say you are against the regulation then you tell us people should be trusted to follow it except gun dealers that is.

What do you propose?

:-D
:-D

[perdidochas]

Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote:

It's up to the private gun seller to be responsible. I know if I were to ever sell a gun privately, I would not do so to anybody that I didn't know personally. In the past, I've seen private people at gun shows refuse to sell their guns to other people, due to this kind of caution. However, that said, I'm against the regulation of such, because it will also preclude me from easily handing my guns down to my sons, or from, say, trading with my brothers. It's also the first step towards British style fascist gun control. Also, practically, how are criminals going to be stopped from getting a gun, from strawman purchases. The strawmen are already breaking the law. How will an additional requirement change things for anybody but the law-abiding? Let's say, we change to a California style law, where the only legal transfers of guns between private parties is through a gun dealer (most of whom charge between $25 and $50 to do so, from what I've read). Let's say, before the law passed, John Smith was buying guns legally and then turned around and sold guns in private sales at inflated prices to questionable people. He has reasonable suspicion to believe that they are criminals, and he's ignoring that law. If the law requires him to transfer to a dealer, do you think he's going to obey the transfership by dealer law? Of course not. The only people to be affected will be people like me, who will obey the law regardless. What's the use?

Again you say it is up to the private gun seller to be responsible and yet you are denying the same thing to the gun dealer, why?

Well, with business licenses come restrictions. This is a business license.

Lucky Luke wrote: One minute you say you are against the regulation then you tell us people should be trusted to follow it except gun dealers that is.

What do you propose?
Leave things as they are or get rid of regulations of the dealers, as well.

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote:

My point was that it's all the same. The police state tactics are a violation of our Bill of Rights as much as the banning of guns is. If you are against one, you should be against the other. If the issue is safety, why not give in? After all, if we do all of that--ban guns, decrease civil liberties, etc., we will have no crime.

Again, my point is that getting rid of liberty in exchange for safety isn't worth it.

Who is talking about banning guns Perdidochas? We were talking about how bad would it be if stricter gun control became borderline unconstitutional.

:-D
:-D