Jump to content
TrumpBGoneSoon

A Serious Discussion about Gun Violence.

Recommended Posts

Just now, XavierOnassis said:

That is not true: the percentage of guns to civilians is higher now than it ever was. And the guns are deadier. Ordinary citizens did not own gatling guns.

You are USELESS to this discussion.

you are a liar....and yes rich citizens that could afford gatling guns did own them.....so enough of your lies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bigsky said:

you are a liar....and yes rich citizens that could afford gatling guns did own them.....so enough of your lies

NAME some rich person who owned  a Gatling gun in 1918. Name three. Bet you can't. I doubt you have the smarts to even find out.

 

You are an ignoramus and a troll, and are here only to insult people and be obnoxious.

There is vastly more firepower in civilian hands now than ever before. 

The more guns are in circulation, the more people are going to get shot and shoot themselves as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Just to prove that the 2nd Amendment is up for interpretation.  

and I said the Supreme Court has ruled on that already....

every American Citizen has the right to bear arms!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

NAME some rich person who owned  a Gatling gun in 1918. Name three. Bet you can't. I doubt you have the smarts to even find out.

 

You are an ignoramus and a troll, and are here only to insult people and be obnoxious.

There is vastly more firepower in civilian hands now than ever before. 

The more guns are in circulation, the more people are going to get shot and shoot themselves as well.

https://www.gunbroker.com/Gatling-Gun/Browse.aspx?Keywords=Gatling+Gun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

You cannot  deport citizens or legal residents without cause, Nearly all the shooters were BORN HERE. 

and we wouldn't be so opposed to them if they focused their aggression on the Mexicans living here illegally and their anchor babies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to dodge the question. YOu, a dimwit, choose to post in a thread about how to reduce gun violence that rich men owned Gatling guns 100 years ago. 

 

I asked you to give the named of THREE of them.

 

But all you posted was a place where some violent Bad word could buy an antique Gatling gun.

Most of these would be, of course, retired military weapons, not the personal Gatling gun of Henry Ford. J.Pierpont Morgan or perhaps Thomas Edison.

 

Deporting law abiding citizens is not the way to stop mass shootings in this country.

You  are a dummy and lack the ability to discuss anything intelligently. You are an ANGRY dummy  who cannot carry on an intelligent conversation about anything. At least so far that is your track record here.

 

By the way, FUIMOS means, "We fled", or "We ran away" in Latin. An appropriate motto, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

 

However, Guns are cheap and plentiful and often falling into the hands of people who abuse them to the point of getting a lot of other people killed.   . . .

 

 

I don't want to win this problem, I want to solve it.  

 

 

Most gun deaths in the USA are suicides and most of the homicides are criminals being criminals.

 

In many cities, the victims and the murderer are both "in the game" and are not responsive to  "gun control" as it is promoted.

 

Murders could be reduced 40% - 60% by focusing on the circumstances and those most likely to murder.

 

There is no need to make new laws that will only impact those least likely to commit a crime with a gun.

 

Here are my suggestions.  No citizen rights are at risk, all that is demanded is tofully enforce laws already on the books. 

If these ideas were implemented, I do believe murder would fall 50% in 2 years:

 

 

1) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms.
2) Don't allow prosecutors to use weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges.
3) Never allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors, especially violent misuse.
4) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.
5) Special streamlined courts and enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession.
6) Demand (with severe penalty for public employees for non-compliance) that states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including mental illness - HIPPA be damned). and new additions be shared with the federal NICS system and all other states on a bi-weekly basis.
7) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release.
8) Increase funding for states / cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.
9) Enact nationwide concealed weapon permit reciprocity that no state or municipality can opt out of.

 

Of course these ideas would be resisted and denounced in the jurisdictions where it is most necessary to implement them.  The cities with the worst murder problem have turned away from punishing criminals and have instead chosen clearance rates over meting out justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jeerleader said:

 

Most gun deaths in the USA are suicides and most of the homicides are criminals being criminals.

 

In many cities, the victims and the murderer are both "in the game" and are not responsive to  "gun control" as it is promoted.

 

Murders could be reduced 40% - 60% by focusing on the circumstances and those most likely to murder.

 

There is no need to make new laws that will only impact those least likely to commit a crime with a gun.

 

Here are my suggestions.  No citizen rights are at risk, all that is demanded is tofully enforce laws already on the books. 

If these ideas were implemented, I do believe murder would fall 50% in 2 years:

 

 

1) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms.
2) Don't allow prosecutors to use weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges.
3) Never allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors, especially violent misuse.
4) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.
5) Special streamlined courts and enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession.
6) Demand (with severe penalty for public employees for non-compliance) that states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including mental illness - HIPPA be damned). and new additions be shared with the federal NICS system and all other states on a bi-weekly basis.
7) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release.
8) Increase funding for states / cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.
9) Enact nationwide concealed weapon permit reciprocity that no state or municipality can opt out of.

 

Of course these ideas would be resisted and denounced in the jurisdictions where it is most necessary to implement them.  The cities with the worst murder problem have turned away from punishing criminals and have instead chosen clearance rates over meting out justice.

5150

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Five By Five said:

Murders could be reduced 40% - 60% by focusing on the circumstances and those most likely to murder.

Cannabis legalization could make this a reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Just to prove that the 2nd Amendment is up for interpretation.  

 

No, it isn't , . . .  At least not in the way you mean.

 

SCOTUS has held for going on 140 years that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. 

 

That means that "interpreting" words that the right does not depend upon, into creating conditions and qualifications on the right, is illogical and anti-constitutional.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jeerleader said:

 

No, it isn't , . . .  At least not in the way you mean.

 

SCOTUS has held for going on 140 years that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. 

 

That means that "interpreting" words that the right does not depend upon, into creating conditions and qualifications on the right, is illogical and anti-constitutional.

 

Man.. people are killiing people everday with guns

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some folks just launch million dollar firecrackers

 

 

 

Should Walmart sell nukes??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Just to prove that the 2nd Amendment is up for interpretation.  

 

Only if you are ignorant or illiterate.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

You cannot  deport citizens or legal residents without cause, Nearly all the shooters were BORN HERE. 

 

A third-worlder is a third-worlder is a third-worlder.  It DOES NOT matter WHERE he was born.

 

Negroes and mestizos have DRAMATICALLY HIGHER rates of violence than do those of us of Western European descent.

 

You really do need to tell your handlers to provide you with more information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

That is not true: the percentage of guns to civilians is higher now than it ever was. And the guns are deadier. Ordinary citizens did not own gatling guns.

You are USELESS to this discussion.

 

Estimated 1.4 million gang members with an unknown number of guns that are not legal. Registered people turn in their guns and then it is open season hunting on humans.

 

Police statement 30 years ago: We know where all the gang members are, Yeah Chongo figured that you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeerleader said:

 

No, it isn't , . . .  At least not in the way you mean.

 

SCOTUS has held for going on 140 years that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. 

 

That means that "interpreting" words that the right does not depend upon, into creating conditions and qualifications on the right, is illogical and anti-constitutional.

 

The federal court did rule that AR-15's are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.   So it is up for interpretation.  

 

COURT RULES SECOND AMENDMENT DOESN’T PROTECT AR-15, ASSAULT RIFLES AND LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeerleader said:

 

Most gun deaths in the USA are suicides and most of the homicides are criminals being criminals.

 

In many cities, the victims and the murderer are both "in the game" and are not responsive to  "gun control" as it is promoted.

 

Murders could be reduced 40% - 60% by focusing on the circumstances and those most likely to murder.

 

There is no need to make new laws that will only impact those least likely to commit a crime with a gun.

 

Here are my suggestions.  No citizen rights are at risk, all that is demanded is tofully enforce laws already on the books. 

If these ideas were implemented, I do believe murder would fall 50% in 2 years:

 

 

1) Enforce with vigor laws criminalizing the violent misuse of firearms.
2) Don't allow prosecutors to use weapons offenses as bargaining chips to be thrown out for guilty pleas for other charges.
3) Never allow the pleading down of felony gun charges to misdemeanors, especially violent misuse.
4) Mandate full time sentenced to be served for any violent misuse of a firearm.
5) Special streamlined courts and enhanced sentences for repeat offenders / felon in possession.
6) Demand (with severe penalty for public employees for non-compliance) that states maintain the most up-to-date database of prohibited persons possible (including mental illness - HIPPA be damned). and new additions be shared with the federal NICS system and all other states on a bi-weekly basis.
7) Increase funding for parole/probation programs for enforcement of conditions of release and tightening of controls on those under conditional release and oversight of the boards responsible for early release.
8) Increase funding for states / cities for FTA/fugitive recovery with a priority on violent offenders.
9) Enact nationwide concealed weapon permit reciprocity that no state or municipality can opt out of.

 

Of course these ideas would be resisted and denounced in the jurisdictions where it is most necessary to implement them.  The cities with the worst murder problem have turned away from punishing criminals and have instead chosen clearance rates over meting out justice.

I respect your list but I have to wonder why it hasn't been implemented yet.  And I have to wonder how much of that is because of the Modern NRA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

The federal court did rule that AR-15's are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.   So it is up for interpretation.  

 

COURT RULES SECOND AMENDMENT DOESN’T PROTECT AR-15, ASSAULT RIFLES AND LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES

 

It means that even a Progressive Federal Judge is involved in the Treason.

 

The Supreme Court will iron this out... along with the Abortion issue, very shortly.

 

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rippy38 said:

Give me a smooth bore 6 pounder loaded with grapeshot, and I'll kill a hell of a lot more than 17, in a lot less than 4 minutes.

Is that a gun you used a hundred years ago? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Devil said:

 

It means that even Progressive Federal Judges are involved in the Treason.

 

The Supreme Court will iron this out... along with the Abortion issue, very shortly.

 

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

Are gun owners now part of a "Well Regulated Militia?"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Is that a gun you used a hundred years ago? 

 

Is that computer you are writing with used a hundred years ago?

 

Is it still protected by the 4th Amendment?

 

6db51c182a8791cf663c24c4eb7c3651--quill-

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Are gun owners now part of a "Well Regulated Militia?"  

 

Ignorance or illiteracy - is no excuse for misunderstanding the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Devil said:

 

Ignorance or illiteracy - is no excuse for misunderstanding the Constitution.

 

 

 

 

Doesn't quite address the issue.   But I hope we can still have a civil discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • All lives matter.


  • Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


  • By teacher

    Being offended does not make one correct. 


  • By teacher

    Some few days before the next election Mr. Fools is gonna pin my horse thread. it's gonna be horrible, I shall endevour every day to bring some some fresh. 

     

    I still own this cat box.


  • By teacher

    "I'm coming to you for ask a quick favor."


  • By teacher

    "Anyone that places a color in front of their name is racist." That one is not mine, got it from another member. 


  • Where’s all the hot bitches? 


  • By teacher

    Kidding me? 


  • How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • Get me out of Chatbox!


  • By jefftec

    The chatbox stays expanded and is a nuisance blocking screen images. What setting is there to control/collapse chatbox?


  • By kfools

    Just click the no holds barred to collapse it.


  • diddle dee dee


  • By teacher

    Like Jesse Ventura said to all that would not take a chew in the movie "Predator." LF.org is a political debate forum. This chatbox just ups the opportunity to go at it. Ya'll have your political views, seems to me that ya'll should have thought these things out and be ready to battle. 


  • By teacher

    Is real time political debate a thing ya'll hide from? What do you morons do if you happen to run into some one with opposing political views on the street? 


  • By teacher

    I've never ran into anyone, in real life,  that said Obama lied. I run into folks that tell me Trump lies. I'm at work. I didn't bring it up. I don't reply, I'm representing a company. Not my place. 


  • By teacher

    Lookie there, all I have to do is get out and come back. Why is it that liberals, when they have a company man before them decide they that is the time they go off? Why would ya'll put a company man into that position? 


  • By teacher

    Chatbox is mine. 


  • By teacher

    There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination." There is only discrimination. To imply that black on white discrimination is reverse discrimination sort of lends some justification to the idea of so-called "reverse discrimination." Any discrimination is wrong. Original idea supplied to me by a man called Kyle. Credit where credit is due.


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. I told you unwashed masses long ago in this, the chat box what the rules were.  Told you all that I would rule the chat box. Go check it out. Scroll some. The chat box is supposed to be a place where debate can happen damn near instantaneously. At the onset I said that the chat box wouldn't fly and that is because the chat box demands that all needs to be ready for real time debate. Everybody but I fails.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...