A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    It's really simple; if gun purchases are registered then the government knows where they are.  If the laws change; they look at the list and come get them.

     

    Unless you are in illegal possession of firearms, the government already knows where they are!

    What is so hard about this? They. Already. Know.



     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    I'm a very strong supporter of personal rights, and avoid government oversight whenever I can.

     


    My job is to fight tooth and nail for people's individual rights, so the above statement doesn't really mean all that much.



    In NH like many other states you don't need an FID to purchase guns/ammo.  You can purchase a gun from a gun shop, a pawn shop or a private individual.  I can get a 20 shot 9mm clip sent to me via FedEx.

    So they don't know what I have.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

     


    So..( and pardon my ignorance in terms of guns)...are you saying that a 9mm handgun could do the same kind of damage..in other words..gun down and kill 26 people in a matter of minutes?

    Yes, as the V Tech shooting attests to. It takes no more than 10 seconds to drop a clip and put another one in for a semi-auto handgun. The V Tech shooter had 5 ten round magazines for the 9mm and additional clips for his .22 semi-auto and killed 33 and wounded 23. 

    I think getting rid of guns like the Bushmaster is a start. I also think that more comprehensive background checks would make a difference. I don't like to place blame on a victim..but the reality is this: Mrs. Lanza..knowing her son had mental issues..should either not have had those guns in the home..or should have had them locked up more securely. One of my issues with the NRA is that they don't even support education on safety anymore.


    Mrs Lanza is totally at fault for not locking her guns. My dad owned guns and kept them locked up. He wasn't told he had to...it was common sense to my dad. You have kids in the house you lock the damn guns up. Even if you don't have kids they should be locked up in case your home gets broken into.

     

    I don't think that either of the above are intrusive or burdensome...especially in an age where we are fingerprinting teachers and running FBI background checks on them as a condition of employment.


    I agree neither is intrusive or burdensome. Do both. Just don't expect that mass shootings are going to stop as a result of these changes. That's all I'm saying

     




     




    Okay.. I see your point...but would you agree that as a society we have to do something..try something..to reduce the number of deaths from mass murders? I think the things I mentioned are a start.

    Nothing will eliminate these things..just like tougher drunk driving laws don't eliminate drunk driving...but we have an obligation to try to reduce deaths from gun violence. Even if one life is saved..it is worth it.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

     


    So we should do nothing? Then what..? There has to be common sense..holistic solution that everyone can agree with. 80 percent of NRA members support stricter back ground checks. A stricter background check may have revealed that there was someone with a mental illness in the household..who clearly had access to the guns.

     

    No one is arguing that we need to address the mental health issues. Adam Lanza's mother was trying to have her son committed and she was getting very little support from the "professionals" who basically told her the system would not help until he was arrested for committing a crime. This is all too common..and there is something fundamentally wrong in that.

    That being said..would you agree that no one needs to own a bushmaster..? These things should not even be on the market.

     



    Not saying we shouldn't do anything. Just saying not to have unrealistic expectations about it.

     

    Sure, no one needs a bushmaster. But that's far from the only gun that has ever been used in mass shootings. Everyone is freaked out and concentrates on getting rid of guns like the bushmaster. Hell, 9mm handguns have been used to kill a hell of a lot more civilians than bushmaster's ever have. So why, if deaths are the main reason, are we in such a tizzy over bushmaster type guns and not 9mm handguns??? I find this confusing. Non-assault weapons have been used in about 75% of mass shootings....yet all people seem to be concerned about is assault weapons. Why is that? How about the fact that the most deaths (33) from a mass shooting (V Tech) happened with a 9mm and .22 handguns. 

     

     




    So..( and pardon my ignorance in terms of guns)...are you saying that a 9mm handgun could do the same kind of damage..in other words..gun down and kill 26 people in a matter of minutes?

     

    I think getting rid of guns like the Bushmaster is a start. I also think that more comprehensive background checks would make a difference. I don't like to place blame on a victim..but the reality is this: Mrs. Lanza..knowing her son had mental issues..should either not have had those guns in the home..or should have had them locked up more securely. One of my issues with the NRA is that they don't even support education on safety anymore.

    I don't think that either of the above are intrusive or burdensome...especially in an age where we are fingerprinting teachers and running FBI background checks on them as a condition of employment.



    Yet asking for voter identification is a racist hate crime.

    this discussion by the left about limiting this, registering that, flies right by the key point: criminals and crazies don't give a rat's behind about your laws.  If anything they applaud them, as it does more to limit the abilities of their victims to defend themselves.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    It's not since mass shootings has been the argument for banning assault riflesespecially since assault rifles are rarely used in most gun related deaths.



     

    Slomag's suggestions have nothing to do with assault rifles, nor did he ever indicate his proposals were aimed exclusively at mass shootings!

    We are talking about slomag's suggestions in this thread.

    See the OP! See all the posts!

     

     

     

    All you're doing right now is  objecting to what I'm saying on this topic....

    ...based on what someone else said about a different topic.

     



    Oh....didn't realize we are restricted to ONLY talking about slomag's proposal. My bad. And here I thought conversations were supposed to be ever evolving. 

     



    No, conversations must follow the rules of the woolly headed liberals.

    whatever you do, don't say the proposal is driven by the Newtown shootings. I got my head handed to me for suggesting that.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    still not effect people breaking the law.

     

    Of course they will! Have you not been following?

    The point is NOT that the law criminalizing failure to register will "effect people breaking the law" directly. It's that it will make it way harder for those people to get guns in the first place!

     

     

    If I am going to be sent to jail for reselling a gun to someone without registering the sale, then I won't resell the gun to someone without registering the sale.

    If I register the sale, and that gun is linked to a no-suspect shooting, guess who the suspect is: The next buyer.

    The point is to cut off the flow of guns to the people who do end up using them illegally. Where do you think these people are getting the guns? Are they all stolen from gun shops? NO! They were once legal guns.

     

    And if I don't register the sale, and the gun is linked to a shooting, I'll be charged with a crime. The pressure will then be on me to rat out who I sold it to. That person will be the suspect in the shooting, or the guy who sold the gun again to the suspect.

    And so on.

    It provides a way to choke the flow of weapons from legal to black markets, with the added bonus that it provides a means to find out who committed shootings where the suspect isn't otherwise caught.

     

     

    So I see registration as the first step to further restriction and confiscation; history shows us that its happened before.

     

    In which country? Huh?

    Again, all I can see is paranoia, not logic, driving your fears about having to register your guns.

    Whether you have to register or not, if there is such a sea change in popular opinion that government comes for everyone's guns........the fact that you have an FID card, not a registration number, is not going to protect your guns.

    I really don't understand why you aren't grasping that part of things. If the world turns upside down, the 2nd Amd. is repealed, and government really does start confiscating all guns.....      

    ...it doesn't matter whether you have FID vs. registration!

    Did government raid everyone's house when prohibition went into effect? NO! They raided places suspected of continuing to serve booze. They checked suspicious cars.

    You'd be in the same position as an individual making bathtub gin during prohibition, regardless of FID or registration.....        sorry, that is not a logical slippery slope.

    But that isn't going to happen. See: Paranoia.

     



    It's really simple; if gun purchases are registered then the government knows where they are.  If the laws change; they look at the list and come get them.

     

    If there isn't a registry it's more like your prohibition example where they didn't knock on doors.

    I'm a very strong supporter of personal rights, and avoid government oversight whenever I can.



    So basically, you don't want to register your gun because if gun ownership ever became illegal, you want to be better positioned to break the law?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

     


    So..( and pardon my ignorance in terms of guns)...are you saying that a 9mm handgun could do the same kind of damage..in other words..gun down and kill 26 people in a matter of minutes?

    Yes, as the V Tech shooting attests to. It takes no more than 10 seconds to drop a clip and put another one in for a semi-auto handgun. The V Tech shooter had 5 ten round magazines for the 9mm and additional clips for his .22 semi-auto and killed 33 and wounded 23. 

    I think getting rid of guns like the Bushmaster is a start. I also think that more comprehensive background checks would make a difference. I don't like to place blame on a victim..but the reality is this: Mrs. Lanza..knowing her son had mental issues..should either not have had those guns in the home..or should have had them locked up more securely. One of my issues with the NRA is that they don't even support education on safety anymore.


    Mrs Lanza is totally at fault for not locking her guns. My dad owned guns and kept them locked up. He wasn't told he had to...it was common sense to my dad. You have kids in the house you lock the damn guns up. Even if you don't have kids they should be locked up in case your home gets broken into.

     

    I don't think that either of the above are intrusive or burdensome...especially in an age where we are fingerprinting teachers and running FBI background checks on them as a condition of employment.


    I agree neither is intrusive or burdensome. Do both. Just don't expect that mass shootings are going to stop as a result of these changes. That's all I'm saying

     




     

     




    Okay.. I see your point...but would you agree that as a society we have to do something..try something..to reduce the number of deaths from mass murders? I think the things I mentioned are a start.

     

    Nothing will eliminate these things..just like tougher drunk driving laws don't eliminate drunk driving...but we have an obligation to try to reduce deaths from gun violence. Even if one life is saved..it is worth it.



    Hey, I thought this proposal by slomag had nothing to do with mass shootings!

    here are a few things which will reduce mass shootings:

    lock up the crazies.

    go after illegal guns and criminals in high crime areas. Forget the ACLU types, and go with the Obama drone strategy, I.e. they only have rights if Obama says they do.

    make it easier for the rest of us to carry high capacity guns concealed as a deterrence to this horrific crimes.

     

    any of those ideas appeal to you?

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    still not effect people breaking the law.

     

    Of course they will! Have you not been following?

    The point is NOT that the law criminalizing failure to register will "effect people breaking the law" directly. It's that it will make it way harder for those people to get guns in the first place!

     

     

    If I am going to be sent to jail for reselling a gun to someone without registering the sale, then I won't resell the gun to someone without registering the sale.

    If I register the sale, and that gun is linked to a no-suspect shooting, guess who the suspect is: The next buyer.

    The point is to cut off the flow of guns to the people who do end up using them illegally. Where do you think these people are getting the guns? Are they all stolen from gun shops? NO! They were once legal guns.

     

    And if I don't register the sale, and the gun is linked to a shooting, I'll be charged with a crime. The pressure will then be on me to rat out who I sold it to. That person will be the suspect in the shooting, or the guy who sold the gun again to the suspect.

    And so on.

    It provides a way to choke the flow of weapons from legal to black markets, with the added bonus that it provides a means to find out who committed shootings where the suspect isn't otherwise caught.

     

     

    So I see registration as the first step to further restriction and confiscation; history shows us that its happened before.

     

    In which country? Huh?

    Again, all I can see is paranoia, not logic, driving your fears about having to register your guns.

    Whether you have to register or not, if there is such a sea change in popular opinion that government comes for everyone's guns........the fact that you have an FID card, not a registration number, is not going to protect your guns.

    I really don't understand why you aren't grasping that part of things. If the world turns upside down, the 2nd Amd. is repealed, and government really does start confiscating all guns.....      

    ...it doesn't matter whether you have FID vs. registration!

    Did government raid everyone's house when prohibition went into effect? NO! They raided places suspected of continuing to serve booze. They checked suspicious cars.

    You'd be in the same position as an individual making bathtub gin during prohibition, regardless of FID or registration.....        sorry, that is not a logical slippery slope.

    But that isn't going to happen. See: Paranoia.

     



    It's really simple; if gun purchases are registered then the government knows where they are.  If the laws change; they look at the list and come get them.

     

    If there isn't a registry it's more like your prohibition example where they didn't knock on doors.

    I'm a very strong supporter of personal rights, and avoid government oversight whenever I can.

     



    So basically, you don't want to register your gun because if gun ownership ever became illegal, you want to be better positioned to break the law?

     

     



    I'd call it civil disobediance, because going that far would be a break in our Constitution.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    wdywn, this is the crystallization of my rejection of your argument here.

    The registration law will not prevents criminals from getting guns and ammo, but creates a system where legal owners can be tracked by the government. 




     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:


    In response to tvoter's comment: 

    No no, really. You're drawing the wrong lesson from that precedent.

    Clue: It made him look like a complete idiot.




    Criminals do not register their guns now!!

    How is making a law that says everyone must register their guns going to help stop criminals from getting guns? Criminals dont give a shlt about our gun laws!!

    It's a assinine law that only affects law abiding citizens!

    A govt that wants a record of everyone that has guns and where they are; should be feared by citizens that support the 2nd ammendment!

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     


    In response to tvoter's comment: 

    No no, really. You're drawing the wrong lesson from that precedent.

    Clue: It made him look like a complete idiot.

     




    Criminals do not register their guns now!!

     

    How is making a law that says everyone must register their guns going to help stop criminals from getting guns? Criminals dont give a shlt about our gun laws!!

    It's a assinine law that only affects law abiding citizens!

    A govt that wants a record of everyone that has guns and where they are; should be feared by citizens that support the 2nd ammendment!

     

     



    You will never get through to liberals or Democrats on this for one simple reason.  To citizens, criminals and crazies are a problem.  To Democrats, they are constituencies.

    No other way to expalin the unwillingness to drop the boom on criminals and crazies, but instead drop the boom on law abiding citizens.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    still not effect people breaking the law.

     

    Of course they will! Have you not been following?

    The point is NOT that the law criminalizing failure to register will "effect people breaking the law" directly. It's that it will make it way harder for those people to get guns in the first place!

     

     

    If I am going to be sent to jail for reselling a gun to someone without registering the sale, then I won't resell the gun to someone without registering the sale.

    If I register the sale, and that gun is linked to a no-suspect shooting, guess who the suspect is: The next buyer.

    The point is to cut off the flow of guns to the people who do end up using them illegally. Where do you think these people are getting the guns? Are they all stolen from gun shops? NO! They were once legal guns.

     

    And if I don't register the sale, and the gun is linked to a shooting, I'll be charged with a crime. The pressure will then be on me to rat out who I sold it to. That person will be the suspect in the shooting, or the guy who sold the gun again to the suspect.

    And so on.

    It provides a way to choke the flow of weapons from legal to black markets, with the added bonus that it provides a means to find out who committed shootings where the suspect isn't otherwise caught.

     

     

    So I see registration as the first step to further restriction and confiscation; history shows us that its happened before.

     

    In which country? Huh?

    Again, all I can see is paranoia, not logic, driving your fears about having to register your guns.

    Whether you have to register or not, if there is such a sea change in popular opinion that government comes for everyone's guns........the fact that you have an FID card, not a registration number, is not going to protect your guns.

    I really don't understand why you aren't grasping that part of things. If the world turns upside down, the 2nd Amd. is repealed, and government really does start confiscating all guns.....      

    ...it doesn't matter whether you have FID vs. registration!

    Did government raid everyone's house when prohibition went into effect? NO! They raided places suspected of continuing to serve booze. They checked suspicious cars.

    You'd be in the same position as an individual making bathtub gin during prohibition, regardless of FID or registration.....        sorry, that is not a logical slippery slope.

    But that isn't going to happen. See: Paranoia.

     



    It's really simple; if gun purchases are registered then the government knows where they are.  If the laws change; they look at the list and come get them.

     

    If there isn't a registry it's more like your prohibition example where they didn't knock on doors.

    I'm a very strong supporter of personal rights, and avoid government oversight whenever I can.

     



    So basically, you don't want to register your gun because if gun ownership ever became illegal, you want to be better positioned to break the law?

     

     

     



    I'd call it civil disobediance, because going that far would be a break in our Constitution.  

     




    When was the last time the US government started knocking on doors and confiscating property?  Even if the 2nd amendment is repealed, there's a fourth amendment that would protect you in that case.

    Today the gun lobby is so strong that you can trade firearms like baseball cards.  Do you really feel your slippery slope argument is valid?

    The problem with your slippery slope is that your slope is dry as a bone and flat as a board, and recent legislation and supreme court decisions have only strengthened your rights as a gun owner.   Meanwhile, the slope that represents the results of gun violence is soaking wet and steep as Mt Everest.  And things aren't getting any better on that end.  Let's take some steps you're not completely comfortable with, but you can live with, to help even things out.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     


    In response to tvoter's comment: 

    No no, really. You're drawing the wrong lesson from that precedent.

    Clue: It made him look like a complete idiot.

     




    Criminals do not register their guns now!!

     

    How is making a law that says everyone must register their guns going to help stop criminals from getting guns? Criminals dont give a shlt about our gun laws!!

    It's a assinine law that only affects law abiding citizens!

    A govt that wants a record of everyone that has guns and where they are; should be feared by citizens that support the 2nd ammendment!

     

     

     



    You will never get through to liberals or Democrats on this for one simple reason.  To citizens, criminals and crazies are a problem.  To Democrats, they are constituencies.

     

    No other way to expalin the unwillingness to drop the boom on criminals and crazies, but instead drop the boom on law abiding citizens.




    I think this is a lazy response - this proposal targets illegal gun owners, with the greatest "infringement" on rights being mandatory registration for purchasing ammo, which you do not reject outright.

    BTW, the Heller decision may have strengthened gun rights, but by upholding licensing, it also essentially said that mandatory registry was constitutional.  Even pro-gun attorneys agree that it's constitutional.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    @directorblue: Dear President Obama, could we please keep our guns until you've caught all of the pro-Obama, pro-gun control, murderous leftists? #rkba #2a

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     


    In response to tvoter's comment: 

    No no, really. You're drawing the wrong lesson from that precedent.

    Clue: It made him look like a complete idiot.

     




    Criminals do not register their guns now!!

     

    How is making a law that says everyone must register their guns going to help stop criminals from getting guns? Criminals dont give a shlt about our gun laws!!

    It's a assinine law that only affects law abiding citizens!

    A govt that wants a record of everyone that has guns and where they are; should be feared by citizens that support the 2nd ammendment!

     

     

     



    You will never get through to liberals or Democrats on this for one simple reason.  To citizens, criminals and crazies are a problem.  To Democrats, they are constituencies.

     

    No other way to expalin the unwillingness to drop the boom on criminals and crazies, but instead drop the boom on law abiding citizens.

     




     

    I think this is a lazy response - this proposal targets illegal gun owners, with the greatest "infringement" on rights being mandatory registration for purchasing ammo, which you do not reject outright.

    BTW, the Heller decision may have strengthened gun rights, but by upholding licensing, it also essentially said that mandatory registry was constitutional.  Even pro-gun attorneys agree that it's constitutional.



    You would think that.

    laws infringing Legal gun owners infringe legal gun owners. Criminals and crazies remain ustronger onestronger one supporters of liberal, progressive ideas and politicians.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     


    In response to tvoter's comment: 

    No no, really. You're drawing the wrong lesson from that precedent.

    Clue: It made him look like a complete idiot.

     




    Criminals do not register their guns now!!

     

    How is making a law that says everyone must register their guns going to help stop criminals from getting guns? Criminals dont give a shlt about our gun laws!!

    It's a assinine law that only affects law abiding citizens!

    A govt that wants a record of everyone that has guns and where they are; should be feared by citizens that support the 2nd ammendment!

     

     

     



    You will never get through to liberals or Democrats on this for one simple reason.  To citizens, criminals and crazies are a problem.  To Democrats, they are constituencies.

     

    No other way to expalin the unwillingness to drop the boom on criminals and crazies, but instead drop the boom on law abiding citizens.

     




     

    I think this is a lazy response - this proposal targets illegal gun owners, with the greatest "infringement" on rights being mandatory registration for purchasing ammo, which you do not reject outright.

    BTW, the Heller decision may have strengthened gun rights, but by upholding licensing, it also essentially said that mandatory registry was constitutional.  Even pro-gun attorneys agree that it's constitutional.

     



    You would think that.

     

    laws infringing Legal gun owners infringe legal gun owners. Criminals and crazies remain ustronger onestronger one supporters of liberal, progressive ideas and politicians.



    Have you been drinking again?

    "laws infringing Legal gun owners infringe legal gun owners."...legal gun owners are legal gun owners because they abide by the LAW.

    "Criminals and crazies remain ustronger onestronger one supporters of liberal, progressive ideas and politicians."..... I know it's a sentence, per se, but it makes no sense whatsoever.

    Seriously, there are programs that you might want to look into. AA? Smart recovery?

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

     

     

    I know it's a sentence, per se, but it makes no sense whatsoever.

    Seriously, there are programs that you might want to look into. AA? Smart recovery?

     

     



    He's got to learn one day that not everyone has Hunter Thompson's gift.....

     

     

     

     

    http://i.imgur.com/ymMtr.jpg

     

     



    He's doing everything wrong.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: A serious gun control proposal - can anybody get behind this?

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     


    In response to tvoter's comment: 

    No no, really. You're drawing the wrong lesson from that precedent.

    Clue: It made him look like a complete idiot.

     




    Criminals do not register their guns now!!

     

    How is making a law that says everyone must register their guns going to help stop criminals from getting guns? Criminals dont give a shlt about our gun laws!!

    It's a assinine law that only affects law abiding citizens!

    A govt that wants a record of everyone that has guns and where they are; should be feared by citizens that support the 2nd ammendment!

     

     

     



    You will never get through to liberals or Democrats on this for one simple reason.  To citizens, criminals and crazies are a problem.  To Democrats, they are constituencies.

     

    No other way to expalin the unwillingness to drop the boom on criminals and crazies, but instead drop the boom on law abiding citizens.

     




     

    I think this is a lazy response - this proposal targets illegal gun owners, with the greatest "infringement" on rights being mandatory registration for purchasing ammo, which you do not reject outright.

    BTW, the Heller decision may have strengthened gun rights, but by upholding licensing, it also essentially said that mandatory registry was constitutional.  Even pro-gun attorneys agree that it's constitutional.

     



    You would think that.

     

    laws infringing Legal gun owners infringe legal gun owners. Criminals and crazies remain ustronger onestronger one supporters of liberal, progressive ideas and politicians.

     



    Have you been drinking again?

     

    "laws infringing Legal gun owners infringe legal gun owners."...legal gun owners are legal gun owners because they abide by the LAW.

    "Criminals and crazies remain ustronger onestronger one supporters of liberal, progressive ideas and politicians."..... I know it's a sentence, per se, but it makes no sense whatsoever.

    Seriously, there are programs that you might want to look into. AA? Smart recovery?




    Are you serious?  I have been pointing out that these laws don't impact criminals or crazies, and not one response out side of " have yuo been drinking".

     

    So, the possibilities are:

     

    That the liberals are stumped by such a practical observation, or

    That criminals and crazies are part of the progressive liberal democrat constituiency.

    After all, it was Willie Horton, the multiple murderer and all around bad guy, cause celeb of the left, who said:

    "Obviously, I'm voting for Dukakis"

    The evidence speaks for itself.

     

Share