Many Gun Owners are Hidden Criminals and that's WHY I Support Gun Control Laws

[fightthegoodfightnow]

The Statement of Purpose for This Board is

Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

Now here is MY Statement of Purpose for starting a discussion on this board

Gun control advocates seek ways to PREVENT criminals from gaining access to guns. Fact is MANY gun owners illegally own guns. Gun control advocates want laws like more effective waiting periods for background checks, like better reporting procedures and sharing of information between gov't agencies and more.

Let the discussion begin.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

4. That's ALWAYS Your Way

Are you THAT afraid of a serious conversation.

Why don't you lock this WHOLE Forum.

The gun owners on this board simply don't want to have a conversation about gun control laws suggesting that don't want ANY.

My post IS in the spirit of the SOP for this board. Try addressing any ONE of my statements on gun control!

[rDigital]

7. Clearly you have an issue. Take it to meta. I hope this one is locked too. nt

[krispos42]

23. Despite the subject line

Which obviously is an attempt to attract attention, the OP is about starting a discussion about keeping criminals from getting their hands on guns.

[glacierbay]

30. OK

I'll take your word for it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

63. Thank You

.

I guess. Tell me...should a subject line not grab attention?

[krispos42]

89. I think people were assuming it was a protest re-post.

It should grab attention.... as long as it does so in a good way.

[shadowrider]

2. What laws, exactly, would you propose? Discuss.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

12. Like...

Another commentator said it better (Ed Pilkington):

Under existing federal law, unlicensed gun sellers are allowed to sell weapons without a background check of the buyer at gun shows and other private sales. Paradoxically, only licensed dealers are required to conduct such background checks, which gun control advocates see as crucial in cutting off the supply of weapons to criminals and mentally unstable individuals. The NRA strongly opposes legislation that would close this glaring loophole by requiring background checks for all gun sales.

He continues:

The NRA has strongly opposed legislation to prohibit the sale of guns to people on the federal government's terrorist watch list. Under current law, a suspected terrorist can be put on the no-fly list and be kept off a plane, but can't be prevented from buying a gun.

And he adds

The NRA has made several attempts to usher through Congress an "ATF reform bill" that would make it much harder – some say virtually impossible – to revoke the gun-selling licenses of crooked dealers. If the bill passed – and the NRA is expected to try again soon – the ATF would have to prove the dealer's state of mind, in terms of his or her premeditated intention to break the law.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/13/nra-weakened-gun-control-laws?newsfeed=true

[shadowrider]

26. Good response with no snark. If I may respond:

Under existing federal law, unlicensed gun sellers are allowed to sell weapons without a background check of the buyer at gun shows and other private sales. Paradoxically, only licensed dealers are required to conduct such background checks, which gun control advocates see as crucial in cutting off the supply of weapons to criminals and mentally unstable individuals. The NRA strongly opposes legislation that would close this glaring loophole by requiring background checks for all gun sales.

>>> Loopholes are created by uninformed legislators who pat themselves on the back for a job well done without bothering to look at unintended consequences. Don't get upset with the NRA, get upset with shortsighted legislators and lobby them to change the inadequate laws they've passed.

The NRA has strongly opposed legislation to prohibit the sale of guns to people on the federal government's terrorist watch list. Under current law, a suspected terrorist can be put on the no-fly list and be kept off a plane, but can't be prevented from buying a gun.

>>> There is no known mechanism which is available to the public so they know 1) How they got on the list and 2) There is no mechanism known to the public to remove their name from the list. Allowing the terror watch list to be used as a mechanism to deny gun ownership opens the door to abuse by those in power.

The NRA has made several attempts to usher through Congress an "ATF reform bill" that would make it much harder – some say virtually impossible – to revoke the gun-selling licenses of crooked dealers. If the bill passed – and the NRA is expected to try again soon – the ATF would have to prove the dealer's state of mind, in terms of his or her premeditated intention to break the law.

>>> If you approve people being put on the terror watch list and being denied gun ownership simply because someone might question their state of mind, what's wrong with having to do the same to dealers?

Seems to me you want it both ways.

Virtually impossible is a relative term. Government can pass any law they want to get around "virtually impossible".

Just my opinion, yours may vary.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

100. Good Conversation

Thank you for your detailed response.

Hope formating doesn't get in way so let me try:

MY ARGUMENT: Under existing federal law, unlicensed gun sellers are allowed to sell weapons without a background check of the buyer at gun shows and other private sales. Paradoxically, only licensed dealers are required to conduct such background checks, which gun control advocates see as crucial in cutting off the supply of weapons to criminals and mentally unstable individuals. The NRA strongly opposes legislation that would close this glaring loophole by requiring background checks for all gun sales.

YOUR RESPONSE: Loopholes are created by uninformed legislators who pat themselves on the back for a job well done without bothering to look at unintended consequences. Don't get upset with the NRA, get upset with shortsighted legislators and lobby them to change the inadequate laws they've passed.

MY RESPONSE: I am and the NRA (and presumably you) are blocking any attempt to fix the legislative issue.

------------------------------------

MY ARGUMENT: The NRA has strongly opposed legislation to prohibit the sale of guns to people on the federal government's terrorist watch list. Under current law, a suspected terrorist can be put on the no-fly list and be kept off a plane, but can't be prevented from buying a gun.


YOUR RESPONSE: There is no known mechanism which is available to the public so they know 1) How they got on the list and 2) There is no mechanism known to the public to remove their name from the list. Allowing the terror watch list to be used as a mechanism to deny gun ownership opens the door to abuse by those in power.

MY RESPONSE: That should be addressed in the legislation to fix that AND keep guns away from criminals and terrorists.

------------

MY ARGUMENT: The NRA has made several attempts to usher through Congress an "ATF reform bill" that would make it much harder – some say virtually impossible – to revoke the gun-selling licenses of crooked dealers. If the bill passed – and the NRA is expected to try again soon – the ATF would have to prove the dealer's state of mind, in terms of his or her premeditated intention to break the law.

YOUR RESPONSE: If you approve people being put on the terror watch list and being denied gun ownership simply because someone might question their state of mind, what's wrong with having to do the same to dealers? Seems to me you want it both ways. Virtually impossible is a relative term. Government can pass any law they want to get around "virtually impossible".

MY RESPONSE: It seems your position supports my argument. If it is wrong to prevent the sale of guns based on the owner's 'state of mind' (which by the way I am not), then why the need for the NRA to argue the same threshold for dealers.....sounds like you...not me want it both ways.

-------

YOU WRITE Just my opinion, yours may vary.

MY RESPONSE: We agree. Thanks for responding.

[glacierbay]

101. What should be fixed is the fact that you're put on that list

w/o any notification, no way to argue your case before being put on the list, no representation by a lawyer to argue for you, no right to face your accuser, IE: the Fed. Govt., no presumption of innocence, no recourse to get off the list.
Your rights are violated w/o your even knowing about it, that goes against the basic tenents of our judicial system.
This smacks of facism in it's worst form IMHO.
Our Justice system is supposed to allow for the accused to have the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to face our accuser, the right to call witness's, where do you see this with the terrorist watch list?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

102. Good

Kill two birds with one stone and put THAT in the legislation.

[WinniSkipper]

116. What you are approving of is giving government the go-ahead

...to take away other rights by putting you on a list.

You are on the Watch List? You cannot vote. We can detain you.

Because until the SC says differently, agree with it that decision or not, the 2nd is on an equal footing.

[rrneck]

34. Can't write your own stuff huh?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Personal Attack and Nonresponsive

Want to talk about gun control?

How about trying to respond to the points made.

[rrneck]

48. Well. at least you wrote that. I guess. nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. Nonresponsive

Want to talk about gun control?

How about trying to respond to the points made.

[rrneck]

81. Okay,

Handguns are small, light, and easily manufactured. That makes them easy to smuggle.

Here are some examples:







(My favorite )










I don't like the NRA.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

110. I guess you don't want to make a Point....

...Other than I wrote what I wrote. No problem.

I did make a point. See post 12.

[rrneck]

115. See post #22. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. What points...your post was a personal attack

Though it can be a loser with the current jury system, there are time one needs to fight fire with fire.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

108. Non Responsive

Want to talk about gun control?

How about trying to respond to the points made?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

111. Fully responsive

You asked about responding to the points made and there are NONE

[fightthegoodfightnow]

113. Ok

Not sure what makes you a 'professor', but it's not for trying to use the Socratic method of teaching (as if) which you most certainly do not employ.

No questions about background checks at gun shows!
No questions about the terrorist watch!
No questions about the ATF Reform Bill!

No, YOU have made no rational points, made no reasoned argument, nor offered any scholastic support to argue differently. Hense, it's not me who has not made a point but you.

[krispos42]

93. A reply

Federal law cannot regulate in-state private sales; commerce clause allows the feds to do inter-state regulation, not intra-state.

Use of the term "unlicensed" implies that they should be licensed but aren't, and by extension the transaction is shady if not outright illegal. Adults also an unlicensed chefs, for example, but nobody calls Grandma one.

State legislatures would have to pass laws on this issue. Which probably would be a good idea; the NRA is likely wrong on this issue.




There is no judicial process to get on the terrorist watch list; it's also non-specific. If John Smith converts to Islam and moves to Yemen to learn how to wage international jihad, then all of a sudden all of the John Smiths in the country can't buy a gun. And the John Smith, the convert, hasn't actually committed any crimes yet.

By saying that people on the TWL can have their right to purchase or own a gun stripped away, you're also supporting all other Constitutional rights being removed... voting, speech, privacy, a lawyer, trial by jury, facing your accusers, etc.

Maybe, just maybe, it would only apply to guns... now. Get Jeb Bush in the White House, and/or have another major terrorist attack... you're telling me Karl Rove wouldn't drool over the kind of power this would give him?



I have no comment on the ATF reform bill.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. Pot Smokers Unite. You May Be a Criminal. White Collar Criminals Beware. They are coming for

your elitist guns!

All Banks are now on Notice.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. There is some merit to improving the current system.

That said, control is a myth. If laws effected control, we wouldn't need prisons.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

14. Thank You

...and you make a good point.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Be careful before you so rapidly agree

What many support as improvements would cause you and the other delicate flowers to wilt.
- Open NICS for private transactions
- Optionally certify owners and not track individual weapons
- Constitutional carry
- No waiting period for existing/prior owners
- Restructure of the NFA and the GCA of 1968

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. You're welcome and thanks.

Many states under report cases of mentally compromised individuals to the FBI database. Check the Fatal Gaps from MAIG. Some of those states participate in the NICS as what is termed 'point of contact' states. The FFL in a 'POC' state begins the check by contacting the designated state agency. That agency will access the NICS database and possibly also one or more state/local databases for records that would disqualify the transfer. POC states are, IMHO, doing a bit extra to ensure prohibited persons aren't given access.

I think waiting periods are useless.
I'm not especially in favor of allowing civilian access to the NICS.
I think 'assault weapons' look scary but banning them serves no purpose and is an infringement.
I like 'shall issue' and don't like sheriffs and police chiefs on power trips.
I think sentencing for violent criminals needs adjusting.
I think a lot of drug use needs to be decriminalized.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

105. No answers to anything...

...I mentioned? Is this all about your opinion and not about "...starting a discussion on this board"???

[rDigital]

6. The subject line is a broad brush smear.

It's analogous to "Many African Americans are hidden criminals and that's WHY I Support Jim Crow Laws."

See how nasty that sounds? That is exactly the kind of logic you are championing. Not discussing, inflaming and disrupting.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. Owning Something is NOT the Same Thing as BEING Something

The only way your analogy makes sense is if you consider both guns and human life property which I assume you do not.

Now....want to talk about gun control....a legitimate topic of discussion on this forum.

[rDigital]

25. Semantics. Surely, You see the glaring prejudice in both cases. nt

[romany]

8. Sandy

I would wager that there are quite a few New Yorkers living in darkness since Sandy wished that they had something more substantial than a kitchen knife...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. Welcome and why would that be?

They have Mayor Mike and his "army".

[holdencaufield]

10. Interesting strategy ...

... flood the board with flame bait calling for criminalizing anyone who supports exercises their rights under the 2nd Amendment. Daring for the threads to be locked and, if the flooding continues, daring for an eventual ban or PPR.

This should be fun to watch. I don't think it's going to end the way you plan.

[glacierbay]

11. I agree

I think this is going to end badly for the OP.

[holdencaufield]

21. It only underscores the desperation ...

... the prohibitionists (Non-Carry Nations ?) must be feeling at this point. Issuance of carry permits is at the highest rate in decades, no one in Congress would seriously touch a weapons ban with a six-foot bayonet and violent crime is on a downtrend.

It's a bad time to be on the losing side of a cause.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. Bull Sh€t

No one is 'daring the board to be locked.'

SERIOUSLY....you do understand we DON'T want the board locked and are doing our best to comply with the SOP.

It's YOU who simply wants to flame and not have a serious discussion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. This coming from one of the louder and nastier trolls here?

That doesn't pass the smell test...pull the other finger.

Better yet, go to Feminism and try the equivalent stunt...see how long you last there

[fightthegoodfightnow]

27. Off Topic and a Personal Attack

Let me know if you want to talk about guns and the remarks in POST 1.

[holdencaufield]

28. Such a delicate flower ...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Personal Attack, Nonresonsive and Off Topic

Let me know if you want to talk about guns and the remarks in POST 1 about gun control.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. What is a hidden criminal?

By definition a criminal breaks laws. What makes you think any kind of criminal obeys gun control laws? Especially a criminal that flies under the radar?

Do you plan to make guns physically impossible for criminals to obtain? How so.

[jody]

20. Many Voters are Hidden Idiots and that's WHY I Support Voter Control Laws. nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. Being an Idiot is NOT a Crime

Next.

Let me know when you want to talk about criminals and guns.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. as you are a good example.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

39. Personal Attack and Nonresponsive

Want to talk about gun control?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. I control my arms. I suggest you do the same.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

65. Actually

You are not alone in controlling your 'arms'. You do remember that part of the Constitution about a well regulated militia......of which the gun clutchers argue I am part of.......so .... Yes, we'll regulate your arms.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

71. just exactly who is this We of which you speak?

you got a rat in your back pocket?

[Clames]

114. No, you won't.

Not a damn thing you can do about it either. That dead horse is buried and there is nothing the anti-gunners can do about it. Well regulated, yes I am. I own several firearms and am well trained in their use and I'll continue to buy and train as I see fit. Nothing you can do about that not that you are particularly inclined to do so anyway.

[rl6214]

118. "Gun clutches"

Personal attack

[fightthegoodfightnow]

119. Alert or be gone

A significant number of those who support gun advocacy clutch their guns in sufficient number to make your comments irrelevant. Let anyone try taking your gun and then tell me who is clutching a gun. Personal? Nah, another lame attempt to silence those who disagree with you.

[rl6214]

120. I don't alert on idiotic posts

I leave them for everyone else to see.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

121. Well on that we agree

LOL.

[holdencaufield]

38. Lucky you ...

[darkangel218]

46. lol!!!

[jody]

42. "Being a hidden criminal is NOT a Crime" and absent an intelligent definition you prove my case. nt

[rrneck]

22. Explain

how the concept of a "hidden criminal" conforms with the intent of the Bill of rights, common law, and American jurisprudence.

[rrneck]

103. Unresponsive. What a shock.

[DanTex]

24. The lunatics may have finally taken over this asylum.

The hosts are probably going to lock this OP also -- gun fanatics don't like to hear inconvenient truths. When that happens, feel free to chime in meta:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240161827

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. indeed, it would appear that the Lunatics are, in fact, doing that. Good Luck!

[slackmaster]

31. Reccing because there is no Unrec function in DU3

This is brinksmanship, and obviously a broad-brush smear.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. Nonsense

It's a serious attempt to have a discussion about gun control that attempts to play by the rules. Try it yourself.

Want to talk about gun control.

[slackmaster]

72. If this thread was really about a need for more effective background checks you could have chosen...

...a title that focuses on the background checks rather than the thinly veiled broad-brush smear you chose.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

83. You Choose Your Title to Support Your Argument which I Did ....

...and you do the same.

[Atypical Liberal]

32. You cannot compromise the rights of law-abiding people in an attempt to stop criminals.

Last edited Sat Nov 3, 2012, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I think everyone is in favor of criminals and mentally ill people from owning firearms.

The difference in position here is that many anti-gun people are willing to compromise the rights of law-abiding people, who make up the overwhelming majority of firearm owners, in order to keep firearms out of the hands of ineligible people.

That's not fair, and it's not right.

If you really want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then you need to come up with proposals that only affect criminals.

If you can't do that, then you are just going to have to live with the fact that in a free society the criminal element will always have some access to firearms.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. You Mean Like Scrutinizing Those on the Terrorist Watch List...before I have to

....take my shoes off and they get a gun?

[rDigital]

49. You trust the terrorist watch list? Do you even know how many Democrats were on it

when G-Dubbs was president? Have you gone mad?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

58. See Previous Points Made In Thread Above

[ProgressiveProfessor]

107. No points were made above

[fightthegoodfightnow]

109. See Post 12

Try to make a response about guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

112. I suggest you find a qualified source first

Most of us are for the goals of no illegal gun ownership, the question lies with the methodology.

[hack89]

51. So you would have denied Ted Kennedy a gun? His name appeared on that list.

I didn't know he was a hidden criminal.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. No

Oh but he DID end up flying just like he would end up lawfully owning a gun.

It's a watch list!

[hack89]

62. How did he get on the list in the first place?

government vendetta - Bush was the President after all.

Tell you what - make getting on the list an open process so we can be certain there are no government shenanigans and then we can talk.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

68. I Support That

But there is nothing wrong with higher scrutiny to prevent crime. Ther is judicial review (albeit terrible accountability) prior to someone getting on that list.

[gejohnston]

74. no there isn't

there is no due process to the list.

[holdencaufield]

75. Are you unfamiliar with "probable cause"?

[hack89]

77. There is no judicial review - show me where a judge is involved.

If your name is put on the list you:

1. Cannot learn the actual criteria used to put you on the list.

2. You cannot see the evidence used to put you on the list.

3. You cannot face your accuser.

That is fascism plain and simple - and you support it to take away people's civil rights. Why are you on this board?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. See Post 1

.....to answer your question.

[hack89]

84. It was self deleted - can you paraphrase? nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

85. My Apologies

Not post 1....the Original Post.

[hack89]

87. But that doesn't answer my question.

you said that judges are involved in putting names on the terrorist watch list - I think you are wrong.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

88. Ok....I get you think I am wrong

...but I'm not. A better argument to support your position is that it's regimented and cookie cutter rather than substanative which is a fair comment.

[Union Scribe]

117. Lol, and you claim people here spout RW talking points

then you go on to vigorously defend Bush's citizen watch list. Is that the "good fight"?

[hack89]

52. Do you support due process?

Why do you support a closed and secret process that no one can appeal in a court of law? You must love the Patriot act and Star courts.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

55. Sure

I think that there should be a MUCH better way for individuals to get their names off that list, BUT, it's a WATCH list.....higher scrutiny... That's all.

[hack89]

59. What about the process to get ON the list?

are you comfortable with faceless government bureaucrats having the power to remove your civil rights in a secret process?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

66. Not Without a Better Appeal Process

[glacierbay]

67. Why are they put on the list in the first place w/o due process?

Nobody should be put on the terrorist watch list w/o due process, you seem to be suggesting, and if I'm wrong, then correct me, that we should have due process AFTER being put on the list. why not before?
The Govt. shouldn't be allowed to deem any American as worthy of being on that list w/o the person being notified as to why, how and the individual should have the right to go before a court and argue their case, not after, which the average American has no recourse to do so right now.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

70. It Goes To A Judge

...before getting on the list.

[glacierbay]

76. How do you know that?

The person of interest isn't told about it and isn't present or represented to argue their addition, and once on the list, has very little recourse to get off of the list. Why not have the right to argue a persons addition to the list BEFORE it happens? Isn't that how our Justice system is supposed to work? Aren't you supposed to have the right to face your accuser BEFORE conviction?
That's what I was taught in school.
J.Edgar loved shit like this, is that a good thing?

So do you approve of these secret courts?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

79. Before?

The foundation for higher scrutiny that must go before a judge is the due process. I agree there should be more accountability, continued judicial review and relief for those on the list.

[glacierbay]

90. But the individual is not told that they are being put on the list

they are not there, nor are they represented to argue their addition. That's not due process. It's all one sided. Is that fair? Not in the America I grew up in.
The right of the accused to face their accuser is one of the sacred principles of our Judicial system, so is the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. Do you think that's happening with this terrorist watch list?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

92. We Agree

It's flawed. Point taken.

Then again, what would be so wrong about having higher scrutiny if such legislation provided for an appeal process?

[glacierbay]

94. Why an appeal after the fact?

Why not afforded the same right as a regular defendant? The terrorist watch list is so against what we are supposed to, as a country, stand for.
The idea of some faceless Govt. entity or individual putting someone on that list with out due process is so at odds with our Judicial system that it takes your breath away,
Do you see the opportunity for massive corruption of this list? Do you believe that there has been misuse already?

[shadowrider]

78. You know this how, exactly

If it goes to a judge, you'd think the accused would have a chance to dispute charges. They don't. Civil rights are taken away from individuals before they even know they've been accused of....something...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

80. Read Glacierbay's response on the topic

.

[gejohnston]

73. there are no terrorists on the terrorist watch list

until the idea of putting the list in NICS, every lefty, libertarian, and conservative with a brain saw it for what it is. It was one of the many of Bush's stupid ideas that anyone could easily screw with political opponents. Ted Kennedy was on the list. Along with Cat Stevens

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/unlikely-suspects
There is no legitimate reason to keep that Bush policy let alone make it part of NICS.

[Atypical Liberal]

95. No one should suupport the "Terrorist Watch List".

The "terrorist watch list" is another example of the GW Bush-lead assault on civil liberties.

The government has admitted that known terrorists are purposely not put on the list and that known non-terrorists are on the list. The late Senator Ted Kennedy was on the list. It is a secret list and there is no way to find out definitively if you are on it, nor do you have any recourse to law to get off of it if you are.

The government should never be keeping secret lists of its citizens and absolutely should not be using such lists to restrict their rights and liberties.

Our government should be about transparency and due process of law. The terrorist watch list fails on both counts.

[glacierbay]

97. This list smacks of J.Edgar Hoover and Sen. Joesph McCarthy.

They both would have love this shit.
This terrorist list is so unamerican that it takes your breath away.
Even many Repubs. are highly critical of it, that should tell us something, and I find it astounding that ANYONE here would attempt to justify it.

[MrYikes]

41. gun control

any person committing a crime while in possession of a firearm shall be put to death quickly.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. oh, Mr -

Yikes!!



welcome to GC&RKBA

[rDigital]

47. What if they were only shoplifitng a Toblerone from a convenience store?

BTW, you will find that "Death Penalty" is not in the Progressive Vernacular.

[holdencaufield]

50. No exceptions ...

... remember the prohibitionists favourite slogan -- "one strike and you're out". I suppose they mean PERMANENTLY out.

[rDigital]

53. The Death Penalty though? This a big tent, but not that big. Authoritarian murderers are

not welcome.

[holdencaufield]

54. Apparently, not only welcome ...

... but, at least at the moment, attempting a coup

[rDigital]

69. I see this too. nt

[holdencaufield]

56. It really never takes very long ...

... before acceptance of prohibition leads to acceptance of fascism

[glacierbay]

64. You forgot this.

[MrYikes]

86. so

the fear injected into our society by gun owning/carrying criminals must be balanced by fear injected into criminals. We have not removed anyone's right to bear arms, just placed a level of responsibility that does not now exist.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. You Make a Good Case

.

[glacierbay]

96. But it does exist.

Do you think that criminals really care about responsibility? Criminals will never give a shit about gun laws, that's why they're criminals. Law abiding gun owners are far and away responsible gun owners, but you would rather impose more restrictions on them which will do absolutely zero to curb the criminals using guns to commit their crimes.

[MrYikes]

98. Uh,,What?

[glacierbay]

99. Sorry

misread your post. Perhaps you can clarify.

[rrneck]

104. Gah!

You're funny.

[MrYikes]

122. If I were to get this into law

maybe the humor would be less evident.

[rrneck]

123. The rank injustice would make it so.

But it'll never happen. That's what makes it funny. And a bit pathetic.