Skip to main content

I don't know much about the gun laws, don't own a gun never used one. But my daughter who is a cop in Honolulu thoughts on it was that it won't stop the thugs from getting them, no more than alcohol prohibition stops people from using alcohol. But her point of view on it is that when a person that owns a gun they should be required to attend a training course after they buy one. And that they should show proof of ownership every five years about the same way as driver license renewal.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I propose only ONE new gun law.

 

You use a gun in a crime. Robbery, road rage, gang war, etc, any ILLEGAL form,and there is no  doubt of the evidence, you should be immediately taken to the local landfill. 

Where, the cheapest 9mm round is placed into you brain pan. Then you are bulldozed into the rest of the garbage.

No 50 years of death row.

Where you get free healthcare. TV, and a chance to earn a Masters Degree via tax money.

 

The problem is not that new laws are needed, it's a problem of enforcing the present laws. It doesn't matter how many laws we create if those who flagrantly break them aren't prosecuted.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blo...t-federal-gun-crimes

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/fr...good-guys-with-guns/

 

It would seem that all the left is interested in is in harassing those who aren't the problem. The Supreme Court has spoken on the fact that those who wrote the Constitution believed that all good citizens have a right to the tools to defend themselves; but then again, the left believes that the Constitution is only a suggestion.

On the same day as the Charleston shooting, approximately 30 people died at the hands of a drunk driver.  Where is the outrage, news coverage, and demand for more alcohol laws?

 

We live in a free country, which means we have to take the bad with the good.  If no guns equals a Utopian society, then why wasn't the world a peaceful Utopian place before gunpowder was invented.  Quite the opposite.

 

The only way to rid the world of gun violence is to destroy every single gun and then somehow alter the brain of every living human being so that another gun can never be made.  Afterwhich, liberals can start complaining about clubs, bombs, arrows, knives, etc.......The killing is not going to stop as long as at least two people are left on this planet.

 

If the hoplophobes would quit preventing law abiding citizens from carry concealed gun, most of these shootings would be stopped or stopped with a much lower body count.  There have been multiple stories in the non MSM news recently where attempted mass murderers were stopped by a CCW.  The shooter in Charleston hated blacks because he thought they were raping and taking over the country.  Why didn't he take the fight to the thugs who are raping women?  Because he knew a place that did not allow guns would be an easy target with zero resistance.  Maximum damage with minimal effort/risk.

 

It's like our current leadership can't understand simple logic but instead takes a double down on stupid feel goodism approach which only serves to make the problem worse. 

 

The most dangerous place in America:  "Gun Free Zone"

Originally Posted by direstraits:

No more gun laws, except perhaps a nationwide concealed carry permit. 

 

 

If the Charleston murderer bought his pistol, the background check didn't work as he was under a felony charge,  If, his father bought the pistol for him, both committed a felony.

 

+++

 

Most news sources say he was out on bond for a felony drug charge.  Some say the charge hasn't been "processed."  Most likely, a conviction, if there was one, hasn't been recorded in the criminal background check.

 

CNN finally admitted as much this morning that the purchase in "SC" was legal [as it would have been in any state by federal laws].  But the POTUS says he's going to make it harder.

 

CNN is more obsessed over a flag than they are the man on the trigger.  Why is it some folks like to place the blame on inanimate objects [flags, guns] rather than the person?

 

Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

No more gun laws, except perhaps a nationwide concealed carry permit. 

 

 

If the Charleston murderer bought his pistol, the background check didn't work as he was under a felony charge,  If, his father bought the pistol for him, both committed a felony.

 

+++

 

Most news sources say he was out on bond for a felony drug charge.  Some say the charge hasn't been "processed."  Most likely, a conviction, if there was one, hasn't been recorded in the criminal background check.

 

CNN finally admitted as much this morning that the purchase in "SC" was legal [as it would have been in any state by federal laws].  But the POTUS says he's going to make it harder.

 

CNN is more obsessed over a flag than they are the man on the trigger.  Why is it some folks like to place the blame on inanimate objects [flags, guns] rather than the person?

 

________________________________________________________________

Those charged with felonies are not eligible to buy or receive firearms.  The rebel flag is meme the reporters use to say racism is still rampant.  And, for racist leftist reporters to attack governor Nikki Hailey.  In SC, churches are gun free zones.

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

No more gun laws, except perhaps a nationwide concealed carry permit. 

 

 

If the Charleston murderer bought his pistol, the background check didn't work as he was under a felony charge,  If, his father bought the pistol for him, both committed a felony.

 

+++

 

Most news sources say he was out on bond for a felony drug charge.  Some say the charge hasn't been "processed."  Most likely, a conviction, if there was one, hasn't been recorded in the criminal background check.

 

CNN finally admitted as much this morning that the purchase in "SC" was legal [as it would have been in any state by federal laws].  But the POTUS says he's going to make it harder.

 

CNN is more obsessed over a flag than they are the man on the trigger.  Why is it some folks like to place the blame on inanimate objects [flags, guns] rather than the person?

 

________________________________________________________________

Those charged with felonies are not eligible to buy or receive firearms.  The rebel flag is meme the reporters use to say racism is still rampant.  And, for racist leftist reporters to attack governor Nikki Hailey.  In SC, churches are gun free zones.

 

+++

 

You're right.

 

11.b

 

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

 

I was thinking 11.c

 

Problem is, 11.b won't show up in a background check because only convictions are recorded.

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Swiss have the most firearms per household. The presence of firearms does not present a climate for crime.

 

Banning those noisy, unsafe motorcycles would save lives and rid us of the outlaw motorcycle gangs.


Bikesexuals:  Leather cladded and confused men who would rather hang out with other leather cladded and confused men.

Originally Posted by dinosaur:

When I talked to my daughter about the system, this is what she told me, if you kill someone and the DNA and the strong evidence proves it, you pluck their eyes out and cut their arms off. For those molesters you castrate them and cut their hands off. Sending them to jail is not the answer.

After all the plucking and chopping, do you send them to jail also..?

It's going to cost millions extra if you do or you don't.

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Swiss have the most firearms per household. The presence of firearms does not present a climate for crime.

 

Banning those noisy, unsafe motorcycles would save lives and rid us of the outlaw motorcycle gangs.


Bikesexuals:  Leather cladded and confused men who would rather hang out with other leather cladded and confused men.

 

+++

 

Bikesexuals!

 

LMAO!

 

Originally Posted by dinosaur:

When I talked to my daughter about the system, this is what she told me, if you kill someone and the DNA and the strong evidence proves it, you pluck their eyes out and cut their arms off. For those molesters you castrate them and cut their hands off. Sending them to jail is not the answer.

 

+++

 

I'm in love.

 

The second Amendment was considered, by the founders, to be essential for the people and in constructing it they certainly meant that sane and reasonable people should have the right to possess, buy, and use firearms.    Today too many liberals would gladly like to do away with the ability to possess and buy firearms all together and sadly our current President seems to be one of them.  He would love to do so by Executive Order and never know he might just try it.

 

Just like with all other freedoms there comes restrictions and the need to guard against misuse.  You don't go into a crowded theater and yell fire and you don't let certain people buy firearms.  Still though that won't keep firearms out of their hands for that doesn't stop a father or mother from buying their child or someone else a gun.  There are also ample examples of people murdering people with knives, swords, hammers, and cars so even if you could remove all guns there would still be murders because you have faulty people.

 

Fact is that there are far more (innocent people, children etc) killed by drunk drivers than there are with guns yet in consideration of personal freedoms and allowing people to have their drinks when and if they want we tolerate he deaths from drunk drivers.   In many cases judges let the offenders out of jail or prison and they repeat their offenses again.   

 

If you really want to eliminate guns then do it in a constitutional way with a new amendment to the constitution and if it passes so be it and if it doesn't then honor and live by the amendments and Constitution as we have it now.   That's my opinion.

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Swiss have the most firearms per household. The presence of firearms does not present a climate for crime.

 

Banning those noisy, unsafe motorcycles would save lives and rid us of the outlaw motorcycle gangs.


Bikesexuals:  Leather cladded and confused men who would rather hang out with other leather cladded and confused men.

__________

 

Ya wanna talk stereotypes, hoobie?

Here... Suck on this for awhile:

 

Originally Posted by Road Puppy:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Swiss have the most firearms per household. The presence of firearms does not present a climate for crime.

 

Banning those noisy, unsafe motorcycles would save lives and rid us of the outlaw motorcycle gangs.


Bikesexuals:  Leather cladded and confused men who would rather hang out with other leather cladded and confused men.

__________

 

Ya wanna talk stereotypes, hoobie?

Here... Suck on this for awhile:

 


LOL, you do realize you fit every redneck stereotype in existence?  Bikesexuals, gotta love their spunk.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

RP doesn't like it when someone blames his bike for crime.  Of course, a motorcycle is just a tool -- for getting one from one place to another.  That some use it in connection with crime and others as a fetish is not the bike's fault -- no more than the firearm. 

-------------

Nobody blamed my bike for any crime.  How you reached that conclusion is beyond me.

 

I'm a responsible bike owner. I'm trained in the proper use of my bike.

 

Comparing guns to bikes is ridiculous.  Yes, both are tools. One is specifically designed for the express purpose of transport, the other is specifically designed to severely damage or kill whatever it is pointed at when it is operated.  I suppose you *could* kill someone with a motorcycle, but a bike is way too large and unwieldy to replace a gun for killing.  You can't kill  with a bike easily or from a distance. Bikes are harder to conceal as well.  You can't very well put a bike in your pocket or backpack and sneak it into a school or church.

  A tool may just be a shortcut to a desired result, but it isn't fair to say that the tool has no part in achieving the result.  I suppose that a guy with a hammer and a guy with a gun could kill an identical number of people, but the gun makes it more likely that a person will succeed faster and more likely to kill their specific targets.

Guns give people a quick, easy, cheap, and relatively detached (compared to stabbings/beatings) method of killing people—even large numbers of people. By making killing easy, guns directly contribute to the thought process that must go into a killing and facilitate even higher body counts. Without guns, people would still kill others, but it would be a lot more difficult to rack up high body counts.

 

As far as feti. sh. ization? Well, at least my bike was *designed* to fit between my legs.

 

Unlike these things:

 

 

 

 

Last edited by Road Puppy

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×