You do realize that won't do jacksh!t to stop these school shootings and public shootings? Just like Islamic martyrdom, our idiots who go to schools and shoot it up are OK with dying. So, how will a mandatory 25 year sentence deter them? That's laughable. Again, not a fix.
For those who said stiffer gun penalties, not laws is the answer
- Thread starter MountaineerWV
- Start date
It isn't anything but deflection away from the true issue and those that say that kind of crap is reading from the NRA playbook. One of these days, enough sensible Americans will wake up and realize this country has a problem and will come together with some true solutions while realizing many of these politicians have been fooling them for years.
People are running around killing people worldwide and I'm supposed to disarm? Brilliant!
Another dumbass that is incapable or reading comprehension responding to my post.
Here is a clue, bubble-boy, I support the right for law abiding citizens to own a firearm for protection. Now act like a whiny baby and claim that I don't. That is what you nuts that can't read typically do.
Why is it so hard to get people to put a ban on private gun sales? Or those gun sales at flea markets, etc? I'm not saying that would have prevented these past few events from happening, but it is a start. Put the stiff penalties on the DEALERS. If a person sales a gun without a background check, then they should be held accountable as well. Now THAT would be a start to things.
Shouldn't we focus on things that would actually have a positive impact? Straw purchases should have strong mandatory minimums. Weapons acquired this way are frequently used in crimes. Weapons sold at gun shows are very infrequently used in crimes.
The Idiot gave you his solution.....Blame the NRA. I guess you and I need to brush up on our "reading comprehension" skills.
Where would the lawyers draw a line? What if you sell a car to an alcoholic and he kills someone or three while driving drunk? How long before the courts extend that same reasoning to the sell of a car.
Friday at 7:24pm post
Saturday at 6:28 post
Is there a chance you can read? I doubt it.
If a certain part of society felt that blaming a car dealer or going after people who sold alcohol were mostly comprised of the political opposition, we would indeed see that happen. I think you know what I'm implying.
I asked you a reasonable question (I didn't see your prior posts) and you respond with snark. Let me reply in kind. Your "solutions" reflect your ignorance. Repealing the 2nd Amendment would never happen. Trying to confiscate guns is going to get a lot of people killed, which is what you'd have to do if libs like you ever did get it repealed. Secondly, you want to eliminate "assault" type weapons and semi automatic guns. First of all, can you define an "assault" weapon? Because you think a gun looks scary may not make it any more lethal than a rifle. Second, if you got a ban on semi automatics, what happens when you have a home invasion and a killer has a semi and the homeowner doesn't. You're punishing the law abiding and likely getting them killed. Criminals are not going to obey laws and we have over 300,000,000 guns in this country right now.
I have offered much more valuable ideas that are doable.
1. Mandatory 10 year minimums for straw purchases of guns.
2. Mandatory 10 year minimums for crimes committed with a gun
3. Mandatory 5 year minimums with possession of a gun acquired illegally
4. Mandatory 5 year minimum with a felon caught with a gun
5. Automatic deportation of any illegal immigrant caught with a gun
These would actually have a huge impact on homicides by gun. Yes, we would need more prisons, but saving lives is worth the price, imo.
Look Troll, you can't read just like your buddies.
I didn't say "repeal".
All your other blabber is just that and not worth reading. Now leave, Troll.
Amend the 2nd Amendment to say what? That semis are illegal? As I pointed out, it will get lots of people killed including law abiding citizens. Criminals don't obey laws. More importantly, it would never happen. Even a mind as small as your has to admit that, right?
Why did you fail to comment on my ideas? Do you like any of those ideas that would actually save lives and are doable?
And where are your statistics to confirm this? Forgive me for not believing it at face value. Too much lobby money being used for misinformation out there.
And those are all superficial. They MEAN NOTHING to these school related shootings. These people are willing to die, so why would they worry about mandatory sentencing? You are targeting gang violence and urban minority areas. Hmmm....but you are ignoring the crimes that are being committed in public places like schools and churches.
Simply put....tighter background check laws and stiff penalties or fines for anyone selling/giving a weapon to someone that commits an act of violence.
Read your constitution but then again, you have proven you can't and won't. It isn't illegal to amend an amendment. It does take an amendment to do it and would agree it isn't going to happen anytime soon. If you could make your family proud and could read, you would see I would favor anything that would head us in a direction that would limit the type of guns and amount of guns in the general public.
Now what possibly could you be confused on? I know you don't agree and you may think my attitude is naive. Fine. But don't keep repeating the same stuff like that other idiot.
They already hold bartenders accountable for allowing intoxicated patrons to drive home. Correct? So what's wrong with giving a weapon to a person that may be crazy? Or selling a weapon without going through the proper background checks?
I will try to be civil.....here goes. If it takes a DOOR to DOOR search in Chicago and elsewhere to find and confiscate every illegal gun. Lets do it. I know that mostly likely it would never happen due to legal ramifications. It may not be doable but I can guarantee that it would save lives.
Again, going after ONE SIDE of the problem isn't enough. Your all are going after the minority groups and the gangs. Fine. But what about White suburbia crazies who are committing these acts in churches and schools? What say you there?
Can't do it under our Constitution. So, are you in favor of amending the Constitution and the 4th Amendment? (I think it is the 4th)
I am not.
This one has been problematic. Someone gets busted at home for making sports book (felony outside of certain jurisdictions like Vegas, et. al.) Same person has 2 deer rifles in his gun case. Commission of a felony while in possession of 2 firearms (2 more felonies). This happens for sure in, ugh, Oklahoma of all the damn places. I think the intent is to pile up charges to get a guilty plea (bean) for the real crime. Good intentions I suppose. My brother saw 2 people come and go for manslaughter with a firearm during his 3+ years inside.
The laws I proposed apply equally to all races. To imply racism is a typical lib dodge.
I'm all in favor of stopping gun violence. By far, most of that violence is not at schools or at churches. These changes I suggested will save lives. What background checks would have prevented the recent mass murders? None that I can envision.
I agree that straw purchases of weapons should be punished with mandatory minimums, however, if someone legally buys a gun and later commits a crime, you can't reasonably punish the seller unless the seller knew of the planned crime.
Last edited:
Where in the hell did I say it was illegal to amend the second amendment. I said it would NEVER happen. I ask you how you amend the second amendment and once again you have chosen not to answer. I pointed out your naivete about this issue. It is much, much more complex than most libs will admit.
My point is to put those in prison that commit a crime using a weapon. The Vegas issue wouldn't apply. The same with the deer rifles, unless they used the deer rifle to actually commit the crime.
BRU,
Thank you for making me laugh. I needed that after yesterday's loss.
Sincerely, dumbass bubble-boy
Read closely. I apologize. I read the word "semis" as "seems" so my comment is off. But that still doesn't excuse your ignorance on reading my opinion on the subject and indeed acting like that other idiot and claiming "once again you have chosen not to answer". I have answered twice. Do a search on the word "direction". Then do a search on the sentence that says something to the effect that it is a complex issue and I don't have all the answer. Once you find that, do another search on I will support or oppose proposals from smart individuals.
But you are a Troll and won't. One thing is sure. I'm done with replying to Trolls.
With this recent mass murder, the guy bought the guns legally. He passed background checks. He never committed a crime. He was never diagnosed with any mental illness. When a lunatic like this wants to kill people in our free society, he will most likely succeed.
The only possible solution I can think of is to eliminate gun free zones and to have armed security in vulnerable places.
This really did happen PATX and I assumed if OK was using this tactic that other states probably did the same. Maybe OK saw the problem and did away with it. The arrest occurred circa 1989. I'm not lying.
I asked you specifically to tell us how you amend the 2nd amendment. You have still failed to answer. You don't understand the issues. Your "solutions" are not workable. And you call those of us who have a much better understanding, trolls. You wouldn't even respond to the options I proposed. I suspect I know why.
And your lack of knowledge about "assault" weapons and semi automatics highlights you ignorance of this issue.
Look dumbass Troll. One last time. I answered. Reduce the amount of guns and type of weapons in the general public. You want specifics? I don't have them. I am not qualified on how to write a Constitutional Amendment. I've admitted I don't know how. Can you read this? Obviously not. And I won't answer your options because I'm not interested in a Troll's options and not interested in knowing anything about you. One must earn respect and a Troll will never earn any respect on this board from me. I would have thought this was obvious but guess not. Now you know and I'm guessing it isn't what you suspected, is it? Leave Troll.
More guns isn't the solution. All that means is that there will be more shots fired. With more shots will mean more casualties. Kind of the "friendly fire" incidents because we (normal people) are not trained or prepared for these situations so we (again, in general) would fire shots just in reaction, not knowing who or what we are firing at. Sorry. Someone made this same claim in the theatre shootings in Colorado and said something like "well I can tell ya if I were in that there theatre and I had my gun.....huh......better believe that gunman been dead". Yeah, right. [pfftt] If that person is a trained military vet or police officer....then maybe.....
Technically, under the 2nd Amendment, isn't it legal for me to try to acquire a nuclear weapon? I mean I have the right to "bear arms". And a nuclear weapon is a form of an "arm". Correct? Why are we banned from purchasing these?
Are you serious with this question?
A nuclear weapon is not protected. Furthermore, the material that goes into a nuclear weapon is illegal to own.
One of these self-declared Constitutional experts can explain more if you need it.
Yes it is ONLY part of the problem but it is where the majority of the carnage is taking place. And yes, I would go after whites in the suburbs as well.
Libs are really, really angry these days (may have something to do with Obama's incompetence and Hillary's falling poll numbers). You're not interested in others ideas or even debate. That shows a striking level of ignorance and intolerance. You're not a good representative for libs. You're not very intelligent and you're angry.