For those who said stiffer gun penalties, not laws is the answer
- Thread starter MountaineerWV
- Start date
I can send you many, many articles that demonstrate that good guys with guns can and do take out bad guys. Are you suggesting that teachers at Sandy Hook, for example, would have caused more problems if they possessed weapons? Remember, the killer stopped to reload and needed time to kill those that he killed. Most of these killers are not trained. And killers like this pick soft targets (e.g. gun free zones).
Good to see you have become Bud in his memory. You cant respond to anyone without name calling.
No need to if a judge allows the law to search based on a favorable "unreasonable" ruling. I also said that; "mostly likely it would never happen due to legal ramifications". My biggest gripe with this complex issue is the insertion of politics into the discussion. We both know that most NRA members are most likely conservative and that makes them a political target from the left just like Planned Parenthood has become a political target of the right. I would like to see the day when both are not used as political footballs.
Because that's called a Red Herring. A feel good measure that fools us all into thinking we're safe, until the next shooting, at which point the argument becomes "Why is it so hard to ban guns..."
There are plenty of stories where a civilian has intervened and stopped an armed assailant.
Here's one
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The attack was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities could arrive.
Myrick’s action stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he had planned.
That's true ... but these events are also a very small part of the gun violence statistics. It might help with some of the other incidents.
While you can't go nuclear. You can own and bear a lot more than you think. You just have to file for a Class III weapons license. You willingly give up your 4th Amendment right though as the ATF is allowed to conduct a search at any time.
Because that means you can't sale guns to a close friend or family member. It also means you can't bequeath a firearm to a family member or friend.
It's been my experience that dealers take the background checks very seriously - it's their livelihood. They may not like it, but they do it.
Expanded background checks? Sure...That would stop law-abiding citizens and dealers from selling to criminals....But how would that stop someone who wants to shoot up the town from doing so?
Valid question:
1. Less illegal guns (sale) on the streets
2. Stricter penalties to the people SELLING the guns illegally (deterrence)
3. Nothing will stop an idiot for wanting to take someone's life, especially if they are planning on dying themselves.
Think about all this Islamic martyrdom going on in the world. Seems as if Americans response is to "blow 'em up". OK, what is that proving or solving? If they are willing to die, then dropping bombs won't matter. Just kills the innocent. Well, if some guy buys a gun from his uncle and then goes and shoots up the school, then the Uncle should face the penalty.
I'm not saying stop the sale of guns. I'm saying NO MORE SELLING WITHOUT GOING THROUGH TIGHT BACKGROUND CHECKS! Who cares if that puts someone 6-12 months before they can legally get the weapon. Require as part of the background check a mental screening. That is a START! Doing nothing won't accomplish anything!
A vast majority of gun sales do go through background checks, but I'm fine with making non-family related transactions from going through an FFL. If I were to ever sell one of my guns personally I know I would take the buyer to a local dealer and have the dealer process the sale. I've got no problem with that. But it's a red herring issue and not the root cause of the problem.
Also, you can't hold the seller responsible for the action. What if the Uncle sells his car and the car is used to mow down someone? Hold the individual involved accountable.
The people I bought my current house from had an estate sale before moving. Part of that estate sale included the sale of several guns. It is just really really easy to get around the background checks. I've stated multiple times. I could go to the store, buy a bulletin board, look at the ads and probably have a gun within 1/2 hour with no background checks.
I agree that it isn't the root cause of the problem.
People get in car accidents all the time because they are careless (or somebody driving near them was careless) and so we have all kinds of laws and regulations regarding the operation of automobiles. You have to wear a seatbelt, new cars have to have airbags, the car has to be inspected, we have speed limits and traffic laws, you can't drink and drive ...etc. etc.
None of those precautions address the root cause, which is simply that people get careless and accidents happen. However, incrementally, all of those steps have reduced deaths from automobile accidents because we've realized that we can't make sure that people won't be careless, so we do what we can to mitigate the risks for when it happens.
But doing that doesn't really accomplish anything either. Stricter penalties, sure. Banning "Assault rifles?" Nah. Allowing victims to sue gun manufacturers?That's just absolutely ridiculous.
People make guns every day, in the comfort of their own homes. AR-15s are custom made all the time. More laws won't stop it. In fact, more laws will increase the market for custom made rifles. Limiting magazine capacity does nothing. I can make as many high-capacity magazines as I want at home. Criminalizing them only hurts me, not criminals.
Stricter penalties for gun crimes, I'm all for. You're then punishing criminals, not the law-abiding.
Taking my guns or making it more difficult for me to obtain one, doesn't make you any safer than you are right now.
If you give the car to someone who is drunk, with a suspended license for multiple DUI's, and you knew that....then....yes, you are guilty as they are.
What you describe with guns... is already illegal. If I knowingly sell a firearm to known felon I am breaking the law.
And that's what I'm talking about. Stiffer, mandatory penalties. For this example you made, a mandatory 25 year prison sentence. None of this slap on the wrist, don't do it again penalty crap.
But I'm still 100% against anyone being able to give or sell a gun to anyone without a background check. I don't care if it's family or not. EVERYONE should be required to go through a background check. I don't care if you want to pass your gun down to your son. Sorry.
So you will give up your privacy even though it solves nothing.
Look no further than this post and you'll see why nothing meaningful will ever get done.
I'm also for mandatory YEARLY psych evaluations for anyone owning a weapon. How many of you all have bitched about old people driving and how they should be required to take a driver's test after a certain age? Well, why not for guns?
Yayyyyyy more government spending but still doesn't address the problem of inner city gang violence which is the main culprit in gun violence.
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. You cant make anything mandatory to own a gun because the constitution gives me the right to own a gun period.
And sometimes living in the 1780's is what creates these problems. Maybe you all should wake up and realize that changes need to be made. And NO CHANGE will leave the 2nd Amendment completely in place the way it is now. At least my suggestions allows people to continue owning their weapons LEGALLY, while removing those who 1) purchase a weapon without the proper requirements; 2) those who ignore the yearly evaluations; 3) those who use a weapon to commit a crime by sentencing them to a mandatory 25 year sentence.
If you have nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, then why are you all hesitant? Even the Freedom of Speech has limits to it. Nothing is "unconditional".
Last edited:
Gang and drug violence cause many times more deaths than the crazies. Stop and frisk saved more black lives in NY city than you can imagine. All one has to do is look at Chicago, DC and NY, now that ultra lib Deblasio has stopped the police from stopping suspicious looking persons. The daily shooting are off the charts in Chicago with the most stringent gun laws on the books but are too hung up on enforcing them.
There are methods written into the constitution that allow it to be changed. It hasnt been changed because change cant reach that standard.
Dave, are my stipulations too much? I don't think so. Most people go to the doctor once a year anyways. Now they can get a psych evaluation that would last between 30-1 hour. Doctor determines if you are steady enough to continue owning your weapons.
Also, anyone not going through the proper channels to buy/purchase weapons do not get a 2nd chance. They go off for 25 years. And anyone who is picked up having a weapon illegally, using a weapon in a crime, will also see 25 years of prison.
People like you, and others who own a weapon legally and do not commit a crime, keep your weapons. The only thing that you have to worry about is the one time each year you go see a psychologist. I don't see this is wrong. I don't see this as intrusive. I don't see this as unconstitutional. And I don't see this is WRONG!
Oh, so the 2nd amendment is sacred, but screw the 4th. I'm not saying that the 2nd should be restricted more, but the 4th should be honored.
You can make things mandatory. It's mandatory in most purchases that a background check is done. If you have prior felonies (not sure if all of them count or only violent ones), you can't make that purchase. If you try to buy a fully automatic weapon, unless you have the proper license, you won't be able to. The right can be withheld under the correct conditions.
Who's paying for these evaluations? It's not the business of government to tell me whether I'm "allowed" to have my Constitutional right or not, if I haven't committed any crimes. It's the government's job to uphold the Constitution and protect my rights. Nothing more and nothing less.
I'll never understand why people are so eager to give government so much power.
The expansion of government is the reduction of freedom. People who like socialism and big government control need to stop trying to transform America and just go live in a socialist country, if they can't handle the freedom in our country.
We need to be talking about less government control, not more.
And even more hilarious is these people who claim me wanting the government to place regulations and mandatory evaluations say "no no no big government....socialism.....no no" are the same ones wanting things like stop and frisk actions. You are right, they say "can't touch the 2nd Amendment".....but screw the 4th!!!! And just think. the FOURTH is one of the main reasons we rebelled against the British with the writs of assistance act and the illegal search and seizures. But.....again......2nd Amendment is sacred......don't bother it. That's an invasion of their privacy. But if you are black, walking down a street in Chicago or DC, then you must be suspicious and backing heat and the cops should frisk you just because of that........:cop:
It's not about being black you jackass it's about using common sense. It's where the overwhelming percentage of gun crimes are taking place. The dumb **** you are talking about incorporating will do nothing to stop the problem, it will do nothing to prevent crazy, and it will only infringe on normal folks.
And I'm not for Stop and Frisk although it is effective. I'm for stand your ground.
I'm fallible BRU, like every other man. I'm not shocked you came here to neiner neiner me over my loss of bearing.
At least you admit your lack of character. Don't speak out on others actions. You have no credibility and you admit as much..