We agree on going after the "why" but I want to hear specifically about this mysterious "how" part. Understand? So we agree on one, let's discuss the one where we disagree. Fair enough? OK, now back to you. Tell me about this "how" some more. LOL.
How long until the left starts trying to pin todays shooting on the right?
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
We agree on going after the "why" but I want to hear specifically about this mysterious "how" part. Understand? So we agree on one, let's discuss the one where we disagree. Fair enough? OK, now back to you. Tell me about this "how" some more. LOL.
Gun laws. Strict ones. With fierce penalties. As I understand it, the Second Amendment is in place to protect the citizenry from the government. That was then. This is now. Do you think if the government wants to take you out you can prevent it? As OBL found out, if the government wants to get you, you get got. So please, no alpha male rugged individualist claptrap. That would be step one in eliminating the collateral damage caused by the ridiculous cocktail of overabundant testosterone and the need for rugged self-expression.
Yes, thugs don't play by the rules. But no change comes without some interim pain. Eventually, and in due course, access and availability would become seriously restricted, either to certain people or in terms of certain weaponry outside of the most basic. In the meantime, and after a suitable period during which gun owners will have time to turn in their illegal weaponry, however defined, task forces could be deployed to confiscate weapons wherever they may be suspected of being held, along with making the appropriate arrests along the way. Did I mention stiff penalties?
That's how I would do it. But of course it would never get done that way. The "how" would at best be limited to eliminating certain forms of weaponry from the general public and restricting access to basic guns to people who must first pass a stringent background check along with any psychological profiling that may be required. At the person's full and considerable expense, to help pay for the strict and ongoing enforcement.
And what are the specific logistics of your "why?"
Hold on. So let me make sure I understand you correctly. You want to make certain types of guns more scarce thereby "inflating" their street value and making it even MORE lucrative for gangs to deal guns. You saw what happened during prohibition right? And the wealth that created. And you do know that is how drug dealers make their billions right? And you do know that most on the left want to legalize marijuana and "increase" access as to lower crime and take it out of the hands of the gangs. Now you are proposing we do the opposite here. You want to make guns more scarce, drive up their values, increase illegal transactions, make it more lucrative for gangs to get in the game and at the same time drive up the costs for regular guns making it harder for the middle class to be able to afford to protect themselves and their homes. Do I have that correct?
Stalin would be proud. Beyond that, you're insanely facist idea would do nothing to stop criminals from getting the guns they want.
Correct on both counts.
Here's what needs doing. On the legal side. Mandatory life sentence for all crimes committed with a gun. Mandatory death sentence where a person was killed during a crime with a gun.
That's the easy part, and should be done immediately, like today. Then we get down to the really difficult part of putting our family structure back together as well as our society in general. That will take decades, but meanwhile we make it really expensive to commit a crime with a gun.
That's the easy part, and should be done immediately, like today. Then we get down to the really difficult part of putting our family structure back together as well as our society in general. That will take decades, but meanwhile we make it really expensive to commit a crime with a gun.
Well, lookie here Max, it seems that perhaps our shooter is a registered democrat. For the record, I don't care what his affiliation is. It is funny though the challenge this story is going to give the left wing media.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ting-Suspect-James-Holmes-Registered-Democrat
Sure, hyperbole is the best defense. Always has been. Reductio ad absurdum at its finest. Anyone who will not sell or make available to you any weapon of your choosing is both (?) a Stalinist and a fascist. Meanwhile, keep doing the same thing while hoping for a different outcome, as the US continues to have the highest crime rate among all First World countries.