It's funny when people make reaching assumptions about a poster's personal life based on the "emotion" of their posts.
Another failed campaign promise
- Thread starter WVUBRU
- Start date
Bru was talking about what a bad country we are for allowing guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them and the blood of that child is on our hands. I just gave him a simple solution for his problem. There's no chance that they wouldn't die on a continent as violent as Africa.
No dog in this ridiculous thread, just a question. Are you referring to the threads originator? The personal insults,name-calling and wacky assumptions started very quickly
We can differ on opinions about the nation and still respect one another as thinkers and Americans. I do however find myself stopping at times. When someone calls me unAmerican, I get my panties in a twist.
Too busy now to post much with work. But gun topic has been discussed too many times on here and i know you have seen it. Discussing on here again is worthless. Just let me know when Trump is able to achieve his campaign promise and resolves it.
Could be wrong.....but does some of your anger towards this incident have to do with Alex Jones et al claiming Sandy Hook was faked in order to create public sentiment for gun control?
My anger has to do with this country has a gun problem and in my perspective which one can argue if they want, the NRA owns the minds and actions of one side of the political spectrum which continues to make this country less safe. Couple that with this idiot president, things will continue to get worse as all these heads are buried in the sand and it is frustrating. But it is like most other topics, the country is polarized and instead of figuring it out, people either deflect or get more entrenched.
To figure out any topic, the facts first need to be laid bare and rhetoric needs to be tampered. That's never the case when it comes to gun crime. We typically get emotional, gut, reactions.
I've never really understood why gun lovers don't want stricter controls. For the seller, it increases prices. For the buyer, it prevents oversaturation of the market. For all of us, it keeps guns from being such a normal accessory.
What constitutes "stricter controls" in your opinion?
Gun crime is actually on the decline, yet media perception paints a different picture. More often than not, crimes like the one yesterday would not be preventable through any currently mentioned measure. So the question begs, what can really be done to prevent all gun violence?
I think someone who has a history like the man in this scenario, should not own a firearm legally.
And in California, I'd wager he couldn't.
None of us want individuals like him to be owning or carrying a firearm, and most laws already cover that.
He was breaking the very restrictive CA gun laws. Question: What "LAW" would have prevented his vile act?
I would like to see a law limiting the production of guns, and the elimination of a certain amount of guns in circulation. Gun companies produce on orders, a fraction of guns over the amount ordered would be produced as well (in order to provide potential buyers with opportunity to try weapons, etc..). Strict licensing, forcing all that own a weapon to demonstrate their knowledge of gun safety. I'd also like laws allowing weapons and their safe storage to be inspected by law enforcement upon domestic violence calls. If someone is convicted of a violent crime, I believe they should lose their right to possess a firearm.
Would any prevent this crime? Doubt it. The guns are out....we can make getting one more expensive, but if someone not able to possess a weapon wants one...I bet they get it with enough cash. I don't care if my neighbor has a gun, but I want it safe when my kids want to play in his house. I want him/her to lose that right if the show signs of violence or mental instability through criminal action.
But it feels good, right?
What about all of the law abiding never shot anyone gun owners you intruded on, or put unreasonable costs on, with your new laws?
Yep, illegal. He had gun charges and drug convictions (felonies) that made gun possession illegal. I'm not aware of a State in which he could possess a gun legally.
IMO, if women can kill unwanted persons in their bodies, then people should be able to kill unwanted armed and threatening persons in their house. I also believe in a persons right to defend themselves in public.
They're not laws that infringe upon others rights, imo. We are forced to take courses and tests prior to licensure to operate vehicles, why is it so crazy to require the same for gun ownership? The only laws I stated that infringe upon rights, imo, would be laws aimed at restricting production by gun manufacturers. That's a haymaker type law, to me, hurting from a body blow but throwing something out there to try and stop the barrage. Not exactly precise and guaranteed to land.
I'm reminded of a line from Veep.
"If men could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM. Let's just be honest."
Sure they would be laws that infringe upon others rights. Not to mention you create a market place where only the wealthy would eventually be able to own firearms.
You can't compared drivers licenses to firearms. Apples & Oranges.
If the law doesn't reduce crime then it's a pointless law, and like THE said, nothing more than a feel good, slap on the back, measure.
That's fundamental conservatism, and I respect that. But how could you know the impact of a law without implementation?
We can't let people with mental issues legally own guns. I would throw people with depression in there as well.
I think it's funny how quick you are to trample on and place limits on a Constitutionally protected right. There is a major difference between operating a vehicle and owning a gun. One is a guaranteed freedom, the other isn't. What you are suggesting is placing a litmus test on a Freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
You do know that if you are a felon, you no longer have the right to own a firearm. Simply possessing one in your domicile becomes illegal. So what you are asking for there is already in existence. I believe that also extends to Domestic Violence. Same with mental instability, though, I've yet to see someone quantify what actually quantifies that.
I'm not unreasonable when it comes to this discussion at all. I'm concerned about the third order of effects. We owe it to the individual to ensure Constitution freedoms are protected. This isn't just some commodity or product. It was deemed something so important the framers decided to place it just after the right to lawfully address grievances with our government. Think about that.
It would help when people can come to the table for this discussion armed with an understanding of the current laws on the books. You listed out multiple things that are already covered, maybe you knew that, it didn't come across as if you did.
In this specific instance, by the current laws, this individual should not have had a gun. Him being in possession of one was already illegal. So how do you guard against it? Bru's solution is to take away guns as he has expressed on here by changing the constitution. I actually respect his opinion on the subject, I don't agree with it, but I respect it, though I don't respect his emotionally charged highly inappropriate lashing out.
The latest numbers for Chicago....Is it safe to assume that their very strict gun laws have had little impact?
Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 155
Shot & Wounded: 688
Total Shot: 843
Total Homicides: 165
Not saying anything when you are saying something seems to be a habit of yours.
Having a sexual obsession with Donald Trump seems to be a habit of yours Bud.
Dana LoeschVerified account@DLoesch · 35m35 minutes ago
Annual legal defensive gun use vastly, vastly outnumbers criminal usage. This is a reality that the anti-gun lobby won’t discuss. #2A
22 replies 109 retweets 255 likes
But there are always lines that blur when taking such a literal interpretation of the great doc. I agree, everyone should be allowed their one shot muskets. Outside of that, there is an interpretation of what arms means, and the extent of protection offered by our Constitution. Anti-aircraft weapon systems aren't protected by the constitution, right? So there are indeed lines already drawn.