Gun interests WANT criminals to have guns

[Freeper]

BainsBane (10,721 posts)

Gun interests WANT criminals to have guns


 
Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 06:51 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

The gun lobby worked diligently to defeat background checks so that criminals and drug cartels have ready access to guns. Individual gun proponents, in their turn, lobby to extend concealed carry into cities, thousands of miles away from where they live. With concealed carry, "legal gun owners" have the ability to shoot teen age boys when their music is too loud. They can respond to the theft of a briefcase by killing the thief. If they see a suspicious African-American boy with a can of ice tea and a bag of Skittles, they can kill him on site. These are rights gun proponents assiduously work for.

Then if a shooting occurs, they assume the shooter wasn't a "legal" gun owner. Yet they oppose background checks. The NRA lobbied to defeat universal background checks, so that there will be no distinction between legal and illegal gun owners. Some who pretended to be for background checks celebrated their defeat. The defeat also provided an opportunity for them to blame Americans for daring to exercise their free speech rights in calling for an assault weapons ban. The gun forces despise free speech, which is why the gun lobby has worked to impose gag rules around the nation to make it illegal to speak out against gun proliferation, document gun violence, or engage in research on guns. Stopping background checks enables them to pretend shootings are carried out by "illegal guns owners," when the absence of universal background checks, licensing, and registration means there is no real distinction between a legal and an illegal gun owner. Gun proponents have worked hard to ensure felons can simply purchase firearms at gun shows, online, or through private parties. That is the situation they want. The right of those with felonies or those without felonies to kill at will is more important than our right to life.

Meanwhile, gun proponents wring their hands over voluntary buy back programs in cities. The idea that some people would by their own choice give up their guns is for gun zealots, a travesty. They laments the fact that a few guns wont' be put to proper use, that is in shootouts in cities like mine, where they destroy property and kill bystanders. Guns are designed to kill. The idea that people might not choose to no longer own guns disgusts them. Buy backs are entirely voluntary, but they disgust gun proponents. Gun violence, however, does not concern gun proponents. Human life isn't worth considering, especially it is people of color, women, and children who are victims of gun violence. Our lives are completely insignificant in comparison to the gun zealots desire to see as many guns in circulation on city streets, where they are used for maximum lethality.

Even war mongers have the capacity to express sorrow at the life of soldiers killed in foreign exploits. But when it comes to victims of the domestic war wrought by gun policy, proponents can't even pretend to express any concern about victims. Villainization of the Sandyhook families exemplifies that best of all. Anyone who actually feels anything at the loss of life due to violence is deemed "too emotional" to have credence in the gun debate. If I object to shootouts in front of my house and express concern over danger to my life, I'm called "too emotional." "Rational" people don't care who dies. All they care about is making sure as many guns as possible are out and about on city streets. Guns matter more than human life to these people. Whether we live or die is entirely inconsequential. They give more thought to their morning cup of coffee. So when we work to reform gun policy, we are up against some of the most powerful corporate interests in the nation and their supporters for whom human life is trivial. This makes our struggle daunting, but all the more important.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023029647

More of this shit that more laws will stop people who don't follow the laws anyway from using guns.

We have plenty of background checks and regulations on the books. We have "gun free zones" where shootings occur. This notion that if we just strip away the rights of those who follow the law that the criminals will decide to play fair and not be armed is just insane.

The left loves to say if you don't like abortion then don't get one, I say if you don't like guns then don't buy one. Make your home a gun free zone and display a big sign outside letting everyone know you hate guns.

Skittles (86,987 posts)
1. of course they do

make sure any moron can own a gun, then convince everyone they need protection from morons with guns.......see how that works?

That is a stupid argument. No one will argue that criminals should have guns. We argue that just because there are plenty of DUmmies in the world doesn't mean that we can't have guns.

Doctor_J (26,560 posts)
5. Of course. And in the US commerce trumps human life every time

Be it the KeystoneXL (really think Obama will veto?), the explosions in TX and LA, Big Insurance rationing health care, and so on.

I take heart that before I die we will have our day

It wasn't private companies who tried to deny that little girl a lung, it was the government. In fact the government told us that some people live and some people die. If the CEO of Blue Cross had said what Sebelius said you goons would be calling for his or her head on a stick.

coldmountain (82 posts)
16. The gun cult terrorists have no morality

BainsBane (10,721 posts)
40. absolutely

How else could they terrorize victims of gun violence as they have with the parents of the children killed in Sandyhook.

 

None of us had a damn thing to do with what happened there. Despite all the laws and the gun free zones you fools have set up he ignored them and went on a shooting spree anyway. What you are doing is advocating banning all cars because 1 person gets liquored up and kills a family in a minivan by plowing in to them with his SUV.

BainsBane (10,721 posts)
43. If they didn't want criminals to have guns, they would work for background checks

rather than opposing them and instead looking to spread more guns throughout the nation. Their actions make crystal clear exactly what they want.

The DUmmies seem to think that there are no background checks on the books already.

[USA4ME]

BainsBane

If they didn't want criminals to have guns, they would work for background checks

That's right. Because criminals like in the gangs and drug cartels hardly ever buy guns on the black market except virtually 100% of the time so if we have stricter background checks then it'll be harder for them those 0% times they go to buy a gun legally.

Or something like that.

.

[obumazombie]

coldmountain hits all the lib hotspots.

[Big Dog]

PhDD is just bitter.

She came over to CC and shook her tailfeathers, hoping to attract my attention and add a little of Big Doggy Style to her life. She knows I am an Armed Citizen, having seen the pictures of me with a .45 on my hip, and am fond of busty redheads.

When she didn't get the attention she craved, she got mad and left. She posted a story at DU about gangbanger shootings on the streets of her barrio, with the hope that the Dog would ride in and save her day. Alas for her, it didn't happen.

So now, she is throwing dishes and ashtrays, and screeching about eeeevil guns and the men who carry them. Poor, poor Alex. I'd say that I feel sorry for her, but I don't.

[Zathras]

Skittles (86,987 posts)
1. of course they do

make sure any moron can own a gun, then convince everyone they need protection from morons with guns.......see how that works?

Ummm, DUmbass, this is not true. If we wanted any moron to own a gun, then we would be arming everyone at the DUmp, which would be a travesty.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The highly-educated but fundamentally-stupid bitch is basically still wanting war in the streets, but with only the bad guys getting the guns.

[jukin]

That is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard/read in my life. There are far too many logical fallacies to take on this early in the morning.

[Wineslob]

Having to make shit up to "prove" a point? It's the DUmmie/Liberal way.

I'm reminded of someone in the media.............

[AprilRazz]

What a stupid C U Next Tuesday.

[Tess Anderson]

What a stupid C U Next Tuesday.

Yes, she is. She's getting pwned in her own thread:

krispos42 (45,267 posts)

219. Yeah, because the fraction of a percent that is straw-purchased really adds to their bottom line.



Or the other fraction of a percent that is stolen every year.



With concealed carry, "legal gun owners" have the ability to shoot teen age boys when their music is too loud. Oh noes! And with guns in the house, "legal gun owners" have the ability to shoot from their bedroom windows at teen-age girls wearing provocative skirts and hipsters on single-speed bicycles and elderly people on Rascals!
 
And with cars, "legal drivers" have the "ability" to run over narcoleptic vegans on rollerblades! Panic! Panic! Won't somebody think of the narcoleptic rollerblading vegans?
 
nd what's this? If I take the same concerns we have about the NSA gathering communications-related data on us, and apply it to the ATF or the FBI with gathering gun-related information us... I'm some kind of zealot, and worrying unnecessarily.
 
And your free speech being assaulted? You have the right to say stupid stuff all you want, but if you're going to continue to do so, don't you dare say that I don't have the right to point out that it is, in fact, stupid stuff. Yammer about your precious "assault weapon" ban all you want; it's a dumbass idea in past, present, and proposed form. Don't blame others because you're clinging to a dumbass idea.
 
And your entire paragraph about not being able to differentiate between legal and illegal gun owner reflects poorly on you. The police seem to have no problem being able to figure out if a shooter legally, or illegally, had the gun he used to commit the crime.
 
And hey, nobody made your side bring up the same tired, threadbare, 20-plus-year-old, proven-useless culture war about protruding pistol grips and magazine capacities and telescoping buttstocks after Newtown. You guys did that on your own.
 

So, can I count on your support for limiting all vehicles speeds in the country to 10mph, saving 30,000 lives a year? Or is being able to drive for a hormone-laden fast-food burger at 55mph more important?

Response to krispos42 (Reply #219)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:23 PM

 BainsBane (10,867 posts)

220. Your information is not accurate



In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report. The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations." These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States



You need to read up on what the NRA forced to be included in ACA, what they have passed in Fl, and gag laws elsewhere. You're badly under informed on the subject. Obviously there is no point in my telling you, since I have repeatedly. So I can only conclude you don't give a flying **** about anything in the constitution except the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment.
 
Your distortions of fact reflect poorly on your cause. They show how corrupt your argument truly is

Response to BainsBane (Reply #220)

Mon Jun 17, 2013, 10:31 PM

 krispos42 (45,267 posts)

222. Fraction of a percent, indeed.

14,000,000 new firearms sold annually in the US.

84,000 diverted from legal to illegal commerce (let's assume for the sake of argument that they were all new)
 
84,000 ÷ 14,000,000 = 0.006

0.006 x 100 = 0.6%.

Maximum, because I assumed all 84k were new guns. The more that are used, the smaller that number becomes.
 


The very definition of a fraction of a percent.




Your side freaking about about guns and demanding political action drives gun sales up 20% or more.
 

If I was the gun companies, I'd be supporting getting your side as much TV time as possible. Far easier, and far more profitable, than somehow counting on straw purchases to increase or more guns getting stolen.
 
And the way you want the guns collected in your gun-buyback programs destroyed? Man, I'd support that, too, if I was a gun manufacturer!

[sybilll]

I'd dare a single one of the gun grabbers to come to the Orange Mound section of South Memphis, and tell the gangbangers that they have to undergo background checks.  That area bounds the area where my daughter attended college. She made the stooooooooooooooooopid mistake of going to a grocery store late at night, and got held up at knifepoint in the parking lot by 3 thugs.  She was saved by a frat boy with a CCW that witnessed the crime, and like a badass rolled up with his gun drawn.  The thugs were never caught.

[diesel driver]

I'd dare a single one of the gun grabbers to come to the Orange Mound section of South Memphis, and tell the gangbangers that they have to undergo background checks.  That area bounds the area where my daughter attended college. She made the stooooooooooooooooopid mistake of going to a grocery store late at night, and got held up at knifepoint in the parking lot by 3 thugs.  She was saved by a frat boy with a CCW that witnessed the crime, and like a badass rolled up with his gun drawn.  The thugs were never caught.

The thugs should have been DRT (Dead Right There).

Easier to catch them that way.

[miskie]

I stopped reading when I got to the line about conservatives being against voluntary buybacks.

Couldn't be any less true - especially since those that offer up firearms during those buybacks are people I'd rather not see armed.

[jukin]

I stopped reading when I got to the line about conservatives being against voluntary buybacks.

Couldn't be any less true - especially since those that offer up firearms during those buybacks are people I'd rather not see armed.

That truly shows how unintelligent the left is. We believe in free will. Want to sell your gun go ahead. Being against "things" is a leftist trait.

Conservative: Don't want a gun, don't have one.

Leftist: I don't want a gun so no one may have one.

Of course, only for what the leftist thinks are good. This applies universally.