Some gun related questions for liberals:

I understand your position and have to strongly disagree. Imagine if law enforcement shows up to search your home and your 4th amendment license is expired! Allowing government to grow strong to the point of forcing citizens to grovel at their feet for rights, already has results we can discuss.

BTW, CA already requires the buyer to pass a written test and demonstrate they can load, clear the chamber, and install a lock.

 

"Assault style" descriptors are functionally meaningless and pure politics, nothing you didn't already know. The leading Democrats do know details matter and why they don't ban "assault" weapons because, as you also no doubt know, the sale of newly manufactured automatic weapons is already banned.

 

Summary of Findings, Policy Implications, and Future Research

"....school shooters are not deterred due to the presence of metal detectors, locked doors, security cameras, or school resource officers (SRO's)."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-37181-4_5

The point is not to ignore the concept of "hardening schools" but rather to point out the better approach is keeping a gun out of the hands of a shooter in the first place.

 

Hardly- the left just pretends that to make crazy sound better.

Crime prevention IS NOT taking people's ability to defend themselves away. That is Crime promotion- disarm the potential victims, and that is precisely the objective of the anti-gun holophobics.
When some punk kicks in your door and you shoot him dead- that is crime prevention. The crime intended was prevented. The crimes he had planed for tomorrow and next week have been prevented. The crime against the public- of housing, feeding and medical care for that criminal has been prevented.

If a gun owner (or gun possessor) commits a criminal act- prosecute. If it's violent, shoot them in the act. BUT if a gun owner is a law-abiding citizen- he's already prepared to prevent crime, and sounds like you aren't.

We realize the fanatics think guns are evil sensient things that are always plotting to kill someone- but that's just you imagination running away with you. It is the person holding a gun and intending harm that you should fear, because with out that- no weapon of any kind is a murder weapon.

It's not gun owners letting the trash run free and defunding the police.... those are the dems, the liberals, the left.

 

Does California use the same care and comparable proof of ability to vote?

 

We won't identify everyone with mental illness, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ID those who come to our attention.

 

No you don't. These people had no history of gun violence, bought their guns legally and then slaughtered people.

 

Does possession of the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" threaten the lives of the public? No. Then why would make such a specious analogy to gun possession?

 

It's well known that violent felons are the most murderous elements in our society. It's just common sense gun control to focus on disarming them and preventing them from killing others. Why do you have a problem with this?

 

Only for those not voting for Newsom!

 

Do criminals have guns in their homes?

 

What does that have to do with being licensed to possess 4th A rights? Imagine if law enforcement shows up to search your home and your 4th amendment license is expired!

 

My example demonstrated the difference between a right and a privilege. The forum member I replied to suggested that the second amendment be abolished and replaced with the current DMV model. Before you continue, I will need to see your first amendment licence!

 

When I was a teenager living in MA I used to take my .22 to the family farm and shoot at cans with a friend. In order to transport the gun legally I had to get a FID card, firearms identification card, from the local police. I haven't given it a lot of thought but it seems like a reasonable standard. But then I would immediately repeal open carry for rifles and severely restrict open and concealed carry for handguns.

 

Alec Baldwin could have used a firearm safety course.

He failed to clear the weapon handed to him. The armorer was a dolt, too. You don't must hand a firearm loaded with blanks to an inexperienced individual (I assume she thought it had blanks.)



In the category of "you never know"... this is an 1 1/4" tie clip my uncle gave me that fires blanks. You could burn someone or maybe put an eye out.

 

I am not saying that it is unreasonable to require ID for minors carrying a firearm without a parent. Do you have stats on crime being committed by CCW holders?

 

Simply not true of liberals. It's like accusing republicans of being against abortion because they want to control women. Completely misses the perspective of the opponent in both cases.

 

The license for our benefit, so we shouldn't charge for it. Firearm ownership is a right, not a privilege.

If we want to take away folks' constitutional rights, we're obliged to pass an amendment. The default is licensing individuals.

As the judge on tv says, "The license is "in" while a fee for the license is "out."

Anti-gun types may not like it, but there are a limited number of listed rights in the Constitution and those rights should be observed until amended.

P.S. Trust me on this one—women will not put up with draconian abortion laws. Educated people will move away.

 

That's a fair point. In my mind "license" and "fee" went together but as you point out, that's not necessarily the case. I appreciate the feedback.

 

An opinion not shared by the Supreme Court that allows for gun licensing and gun licensing fees.

The Court believes state has a legitimate interest in modifying the right to bear arms and allows it to ban some weapons—for example, sales of new automatic weapons—and license others. They have long accepted laws banning possession by felons.

 

biden changes his tune again. proof?

and now he thinks new gun control laws will ---work? only liberals are that silly to believe gun control laws stop shootings!!!

 

Ok. And?

 

Very astute retort to an inane but common assertion.

 

That's a logical thought, but it misses the point. The point is that it is nigh on impossible to detect a person who is likely to commit murderous acts before the fact. So if you say we should ID those potentials that come to our attention, who is going to do the IDing and what is the criteria of the attention? It can only be Charlie thinks John is a potential danger which makes it entirely subjective with no legal or scientific foundation, and that is what many gun grabber want: the more people they can assert is a danger the more guns they can confiscate.

 

I improperly pigeon-holed to make a point, not to be accurate. You are correct in that some Republicans want to exert control over women but predominately dislike taking a human life. Some liberal/leftists/Democrats simply albeit wrongly believe they are trying to solve a problem, while others just want to take our guns and use things like school shootings for cover. Occasionally they slip up and spill the beans and say they are coming after our guns. Sometimes it's not even a slip up like Beto, Biden's gun control czar, openly asserting things like "Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47" and as candidate for governor of Texas he openly and directly says that as governor he will come after all guns. I have no doubt that the latter is predominant in Democrat power leadership, maybe not as much in the base.