Post by: silverdalesauer on April 19, 2013, 10:11:56 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/19/obama-taking-executive-action-on-guns-after-senate-vote/?test=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/19/obama-taking-executive-action-on-guns-after-senate-vote/?test=latestnews)
Post by: huntrights on April 19, 2013, 10:29:18 AM
It is far from over folks... We need to stay vigilant.
The battle rages on. Remember the anti-gun millionaire's alliance out of Seattle that are determined to buy (push through) their anti-gun agenda using initiatives. Along with their initiatives will come the flood of propaganda to convince those that are undecided that their anti-gun initiatives need to pass.
We need to continue to educate people and warn them of the pending onslaught of anti-gun propaganda that will be released along with the anti-gun initiative drive.
We must remain vigilant and stand united to defeat these attacks on our rights and freedoms.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 19, 2013, 10:32:51 AM
Post by: Doublelunger on April 19, 2013, 10:35:38 AM
Post by: lokidog on April 19, 2013, 10:42:08 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
Here we go..... :peep: Better close the "gun show loophole" where 1% of criminals get their guns. :bash:
Post by: 3nails on April 19, 2013, 10:47:19 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?There are far more people out there who should not have cars, killing way more people than guns. Put the gun issue on hold and let's deal with something more serious. How do you think we should prevent irresponsible people from having cars?
Post by: Bean Counter on April 19, 2013, 10:48:35 AM
Post by: Doublelunger on April 19, 2013, 11:03:20 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?There are far more people out there who should not have cars, killing way more people than guns. Put the gun issue on hold and let's deal with something more serious. How do you think we should prevent irresponsible people from having cars?
Yes, we've all heard the illogical fallacy about cars killing more people than guns. Feel free to regurgitate a few more that I've already heard a thousand times though.
Don't get me wrong guys. I am all for the second amendment in its entirety. I own lots of guns, including "assault rifles" with "high cap" magazines. I'm just trying to say that there are a lot of crazy a$$ mo fo's out there who should not own guns. If you disagree with that statement then I would seriously question your intelligence.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 19, 2013, 11:04:37 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
Do you have any statistics on the number of mentally ill people who've committed gun violence with legally purchased firearms? I'd be interested to know because if the government is able to limit my ability, or the ability of a war vet (and perhaps hundreds of thousands of other people) to own or purchase a firearm based on the deaths of a dozen people nationwide, I would say that we would save more lives by not doing it and allowing our citizenry to be armed and able to defend themselves and their families.
I don't believe in the phrase "if it saves just one life". Possibly, if it only saves one life, it's forfeiting 20 others. Also, people die to help me maintain my rights because I deserve those rights and have done nothing to forfeit them. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died for my rights. Do I give them up because one person dies? 20?
I agree that crazy people shouldn't own guns. But I'm also not blind to the fact that there are anti-gun rights politicians out there who'd love to broaden the definition of "crazy" so they could grab more guns. This debate is not all that cut and dry as you imply.
Post by: Bean Counter on April 19, 2013, 11:05:02 AM
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2013, 11:05:25 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?You can't!!!
Post by: buckfvr on April 19, 2013, 11:06:19 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
For one, they could try enforcing the laws the way they already exist. Stop minimizing sentences for financial reasons/excuses. You simply can not take away the rights of everyone in hopes of getting to the few you hope to stop.
Look beyond bad guys and crime. As stated, see the automobile.......There is a distinct probability this is not about keeping a few nut cases from having guns.
Post by: 3nails on April 19, 2013, 11:12:07 AM
The point is, it's not truly about safety. People die from way more things every year than guns. The reason for the attention on guns is that they represent and ensure our liberty. If you cannot see that then this discussion is over.Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?There are far more people out there who should not have cars, killing way more people than guns. Put the gun issue on hold and let's deal with something more serious. How do you think we should prevent irresponsible people from having cars?
Yes, we've all heard the illogical fallacy about cars killing more people than guns. Feel free to regurgitate a few more that I've already heard a thousand times though.
Don't get me wrong guys. I am all for the second amendment in its entirety. I own lots of guns, including "assault rifles" with "high cap" magazines. I'm just trying to say that there are a lot of crazy a$$ mo fo's out there who should not own guns. If you disagree with that statement then I would seriously question your intelligence.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on April 19, 2013, 11:12:27 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
Enforcing existing laws. Tougher penalties for crimes committed with firearms.
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2013, 11:14:42 AM
This is not about guns, its about the 2014 election. If Obama was truly concerned with saving "just one" then he would turn his attention to abortion/infanticide and the press would be reporting on the Kermit Gosnell case, but once again............the sheeple are being fed the propaganda the Obama machine wants them to eat.Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?I don't believe in the phrase "if it saves just one life". Possibly, if it only saves one life, it's forfeiting 20 others.
Post by: combs338 on April 19, 2013, 11:16:09 AM
Post by: 3nails on April 19, 2013, 11:16:54 AM
Not to derail the thread but it is shocking how many people know nothing of this monsters trial.This is not about guns, its about the 2014 election. If Obama was truly concerned with saving "just one" then he would turn his attention to abortion/infanticide and the press would be reporting on the Kermit Gosnell case, but once again............the sheeple are being fed the propaganda the Obama machine wants them to eat.Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?I don't believe in the phrase "if it saves just one life". Possibly, if it only saves one life, it's forfeiting 20 others.
Post by: Bean Counter on April 19, 2013, 11:17:26 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
Enforcing existing laws. Tougher penalties for crimes committed with firearms.
Truth be known and in all honesty, I think this oft circulated statement amongst conservative circles falls flat. I don't want to enforce the gun laws we already have, I want most of them repealed. I want the criminal laws we have enforced.
There are already thousands of Constitutional infringements on the books as it is, I don't want to justify those by saying "no more, we'll keep what we have." :twocents:
Post by: netcoyote on April 19, 2013, 11:27:22 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?You can't!!!
Every freedom comes at a price...
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2013, 11:28:35 AM
And I'm okay with it.Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?You can't!!!
Every freedom comes at a price...
Post by: fishngamereaper on April 19, 2013, 11:30:59 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
Enforcing existing laws. Tougher penalties for crimes committed with firearms.
Truth be known and in all honesty, I think this oft circulated statement amongst conservative circles falls flat. I don't want to enforce the gun laws we already have, I want most of them repealed. I want the criminal laws we have enforced.
There are already thousands of Constitutional infringements on the books as it is, I don't want to justify those by saying "no more, we'll keep what we have." :twocents:
Thats the bigger issue. Criminals these days have no fear of the justice system. I rarely see mandatory minimum sentences ever given. I could do 200 burglaries and maybe get 4-6 months in jail. Meanwhile the 200 plus guns I stole are still on the street in the hands of people that cant lawfully own them. Its not the guns fault, it never has been.
Im tired of gun law talk and rehtoric BS. Get back to the roots of why criminal laws where made, to deter crime and remove those that commit crime from society....leave the guns alone.
Post by: Doublelunger on April 19, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
Do you have any statistics on the number of mentally ill people who've committed gun violence with legally purchased firearms? I'd be interested to know because if the government is able to limit my ability, or the ability of a war vet (and perhaps hundreds of thousands of other people) to own or purchase a firearm based on the deaths of a dozen people nationwide, I would say that we would save more lives by not doing it and allowing our citizenry to be armed and able to defend themselves and their families.
I don't believe in the phrase "if it saves just one life". Possibly, if it only saves one life, it's forfeiting 20 others. Also, people die to help me maintain my rights because I deserve those rights and have done nothing to forfeit them. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died for my rights. Do I give them up because one person dies? 20?
I agree that crazy people shouldn't own guns. But I'm also not blind to the fact that there are anti-gun rights politicians out there who'd love to broaden the definition of "crazy" so they could grab more guns. This debate is not all that cut and dry as you imply.
Piano man, I agree with you. I'm not trying to say its cut and dry at all. My original question was..."Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?" As a matter of fact I don't agree with any proposed legislation that I've heard so far. I just get tired of the "don't give an inch", "stay vigilant", "from my cold dead hands" mentality. There has got to be a better way to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. I don't personally have an answer. Maybe if people were a little more open minded we could somehow find a compromise.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on April 19, 2013, 11:32:44 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
Enforcing existing laws. Tougher penalties for crimes committed with firearms.
Truth be known and in all honesty, I think this oft circulated statement amongst conservative circles falls flat. I don't want to enforce the gun laws we already have, I want most of them repealed. I want the criminal laws we have enforced.
There are already thousands of Constitutional infringements on the books as it is, I don't want to justify those by saying "no more, we'll keep what we have." :twocents:
I agree. With the terse reply is easy to misunderstand my intent. My focus is not on the unconstitutional infringements. Rather, we have way too many repeat offenders on the loose. And we blame the inanimate object when one of these repeat offenders re-offends. It's near impossible to get access to "illegal guns" when you are behind bars, facing a life sentence, or awaiting execution.
And I'm okay with it.Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?You can't!!!
Every freedom comes at a price...
Hear. Hear.
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2013, 11:38:50 AM
You don't have the answer because there isn't one. Unless you could somehow destroy every firearm ever produced, criminals will find a way to get them, period. Compromise will only effect those that are not going to commit crimes anyway.I don't personally have an answer. Maybe if people were a little more open minded we could somehow find a compromise.Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
Do you have any statistics on the number of mentally ill people who've committed gun violence with legally purchased firearms? I'd be interested to know because if the government is able to limit my ability, or the ability of a war vet (and perhaps hundreds of thousands of other people) to own or purchase a firearm based on the deaths of a dozen people nationwide, I would say that we would save more lives by not doing it and allowing our citizenry to be armed and able to defend themselves and their families.
I don't believe in the phrase "if it saves just one life". Possibly, if it only saves one life, it's forfeiting 20 others. Also, people die to help me maintain my rights because I deserve those rights and have done nothing to forfeit them. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died for my rights. Do I give them up because one person dies? 20?
I agree that crazy people shouldn't own guns. But I'm also not blind to the fact that there are anti-gun rights politicians out there who'd love to broaden the definition of "crazy" so they could grab more guns. This debate is not all that cut and dry as you imply.
Post by: turkeyfeather on April 19, 2013, 11:56:05 AM
Post by: snowpack on April 19, 2013, 11:57:41 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?start with enforcing the existing laws to include the 22,000 that just pertain to guns.
Post by: magnanimous_j on April 19, 2013, 12:23:16 PM
. I don't personally have an answer. Maybe if people were a little more open minded we could somehow find a compromise.
There might not be one. Even something as seemingly obvious as “crazy people shouldn’t have guns,” is nothing but one big shade of gray. Crazy/Sane is not a binary nor permanent positions. There are certain people who shouldn’t have guns. Certain people who shouldn’t have alcohol. Certain people who shouldn’t have children, etc etc.
Proponents for gun control believe they are preventing violence by stopping someone from getting a gun who would do illegal violence with it. I think that’s short sighted. I think by the time someone is trying to buy a gun with the intention of committing crime with it, that ship has already sailed. Go back further. We need to figure out what makes people WILLING to commit these acts of violence and address those issues. The events in Boston have proven beyond doubt, that someone who wants to hurt someone will find a way. Guns are not the issue because weapons have been an integral part of the human experience since we came out of the trees. Weapons just… are. Any attempt to disarm people is not an attempt to do away with weapons, as the disarming force is certainly not going to give theirs up, it is attempt to concentrate deadly force in the hands of the ruling elite and their minions (generally police and military). In many ways, it is an attempt to make you livestock.
Crazy people shouldn’t have guns. Instead of fighting a losing effort to keep them from getting a gun, which is only 1 of a trillion ways to hurt someone (albeit, the most popular) lets address why they're crazy in the first place.
Post by: Bob33 on April 19, 2013, 12:29:58 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 19, 2013, 12:32:34 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 19, 2013, 01:21:48 PM
I can't believe I'm going to say this but...........I actually agree with Mags. :o. I don't personally have an answer. Maybe if people were a little more open minded we could somehow find a compromise.
There might not be one. Even something as seemingly obvious as “crazy people shouldn’t have guns,” is nothing but one big shade of gray. Crazy/Sane is not a binary nor permanent positions. There are certain people who shouldn’t have guns. Certain people who shouldn’t have alcohol. Certain people who shouldn’t have children, etc etc.
Proponents for gun control believe they are preventing violence by stopping someone from getting a gun who would do illegal violence with it. I think that’s short sighted. I think by the time someone is trying to buy a gun with the intention of committing crime with it, that ship has already sailed. Go back further. We need to figure out what makes people WILLING to commit these acts of violence and address those issues. The events in Boston have proven beyond doubt, that someone who wants to hurt someone will find a way. Guns are not the issue because weapons have been an integral part of the human experience since we came out of the trees. Weapons just… are. Any attempt to disarm people is not an attempt to do away with weapons, as the disarming force is certainly not going to give theirs up, it is attempt to concentrate deadly force in the hands of the ruling elite and their minions (generally police and military). In many ways, it is an attempt to make you livestock.
Crazy people shouldn’t have guns. Instead of fighting a losing effort to keep them from getting a gun, which is only 1 of a trillion ways to hurt someone (albeit, the most popular) lets address why they're crazy in the first place.
Post by: lokidog on April 19, 2013, 04:20:39 PM
I can't believe I'm going to say this but...........I actually agree with Mags. :o. I don't personally have an answer. Maybe if people were a little more open minded we could somehow find a compromise.
There might not be one. Even something as seemingly obvious as “crazy people shouldn’t have guns,” is nothing but one big shade of gray. Crazy/Sane is not a binary nor permanent positions. There are certain people who shouldn’t have guns. Certain people who shouldn’t have alcohol. Certain people who shouldn’t have children, etc etc.
Proponents for gun control believe they are preventing violence by stopping someone from getting a gun who would do illegal violence with it. I think that’s short sighted. I think by the time someone is trying to buy a gun with the intention of committing crime with it, that ship has already sailed. Go back further. We need to figure out what makes people WILLING to commit these acts of violence and address those issues. The events in Boston have proven beyond doubt, that someone who wants to hurt someone will find a way. Guns are not the issue because weapons have been an integral part of the human experience since we came out of the trees. Weapons just… are. Any attempt to disarm people is not an attempt to do away with weapons, as the disarming force is certainly not going to give theirs up, it is attempt to concentrate deadly force in the hands of the ruling elite and their minions (generally police and military). In many ways, it is an attempt to make you livestock.
Crazy people shouldn’t have guns. Instead of fighting a losing effort to keep them from getting a gun, which is only 1 of a trillion ways to hurt someone (albeit, the most popular) lets address why they're crazy in the first place.
I know, right? I think someone hacked into his account, or he forgot to take his meds today.... :chuckle: :chuckle: and :chuckle: in case anyone missed the humor part. ;)
Post by: Doublelunger on April 19, 2013, 04:42:39 PM
Post by: Doublelunger on April 19, 2013, 04:44:30 PM
Post by: christopheri on April 19, 2013, 08:04:36 PM
:chuckle: Mags, all joking aside you made a great point. :tup:
X2 :tup:
Post by: csaaphill on April 19, 2013, 09:13:10 PM
But if he does this if we don't riot or something were sad.
oh ya did anyone firoff three rounds last night at midnight?
or three firecrackers?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 20, 2013, 08:31:47 AM
Post by: JJD on April 20, 2013, 10:05:10 AM
Also know of more than one combat veteran, still active duty military, who are doing the same. More often than not, gettin a little help getting your feces coagulated helps in these instances.
Pulling them all off the line & give'em desk jobs will not help.
More useless laws would likely encourage folks who could use a little help to opt out.
Post by: csaaphill on April 23, 2013, 04:10:20 PM
Tha'ts bull violating the bill of rights by bypassing Congress. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: arees on April 23, 2013, 04:48:41 PM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
Do you have any statistics on the number of mentally ill people who've committed gun violence with legally purchased firearms? I'd be interested to know because if the government is able to limit my ability, or the ability of a war vet (and perhaps hundreds of thousands of other people) to own or purchase a firearm based on the deaths of a dozen people nationwide, I would say that we would save more lives by not doing it and allowing our citizenry to be armed and able to defend themselves and their families.
I don't believe in the phrase "if it saves just one life". Possibly, if it only saves one life, it's forfeiting 20 others. Also, people die to help me maintain my rights because I deserve those rights and have done nothing to forfeit them. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died for my rights. Do I give them up because one person dies? 20?
I agree that crazy people shouldn't own guns. But I'm also not blind to the fact that there are anti-gun rights politicians out there who'd love to broaden the definition of "crazy" so they could grab more guns. This debate is not all that cut and dry as you imply.
Piano man, I agree with you. I'm not trying to say its cut and dry at all. My original question was..."Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?" As a matter of fact I don't agree with any proposed legislation that I've heard so far. I just get tired of the "don't give an inch", "stay vigilant", "from my cold dead hands" mentality. There has got to be a better way to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. I don't personally have an answer. Maybe if people were a little more open minded we could somehow find a compromise.
No, actually there does not have to be a better way to keep guns out of the hands of those people who should not have them. There are often things that we wish we could have that we do not have. We do not have a fool proof crazy person detector. More to the point, we do not have a fool proof future crazy person detector.
Too many times people leap from "I wish there was a solution to this problem" to "we have to do something even if it doesn't solve the problem." Often this causes more harm than good. This is one of those cases. Wouldn't it be nice if we could prevent all auto accidents? Or all drowning deaths? Falling off ladders? Having trees fall on people walking in the woods? It would be nice, but it won't happen.
Do not make the leap from wishing for a solution to enacting a stupid law.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 24, 2013, 06:03:14 AM
Post by: netcoyote on April 24, 2013, 09:19:02 AM
I'm still butthurt over the last email I got back from Maria Cantwell. :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Johnb317 on April 24, 2013, 10:05:53 AM
Interesting how information like the following never hit the news.
Standing Guard
By Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President
Not Enforcing Existing Gun Laws—That’s A Crime
If anybody in Chicago is culpable for the armed carnage on that city’s mean streets, it’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who never misses an opportunity to blame peaceable, law-abiding gun owners for the daily bloodletting by violent Chicago thugs.
Emanuel steadfastly refuses to demand application of tough federal laws that would surgically rid the streets of criminals who currently terrorize many Chicago neighborhoods. And that represents a kind of aggressive political malfeasance.
For Emanuel—a former U.S. congressman, former chief of staff in President Barack Obama’s White House and former Bill Clinton White House gun-ban guru—to intentionally blow off federal laws punishing illegally armed violent criminals is especially vile.
The reason is simple. If Chicago citizens knew the extent of existing harsh criminal sanctions and that those laws could readily be applied to prosecute real criminals, Emanuel’s endless call for new “gun control” would be seen for what it is: an evil campaign to disarm the innocent. And those federal laws apply equally in every corner of the nation.
That reality goes for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and for every other mayor signed on to his phony national political machine, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It also goes for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama.
A January 2013 Chicago Tribune story headlined, “U.S. struggles over which gun crimes to prosecute,” reported, “Obama’s Justice Department has shown little appetite to prosecute what it considers low-level firearms crimes… officials with the department said.”
If “low-level” prosecutions of the most violent armed criminals in Chicago were the norm, that city—with thousands of shootings and armed robberies added to its growing number of murders—would see scores of the worst violent gang members and armed drug dealers sent to prison in sure, swift prosecutions. That’s true for every city in America.
But Chicago, with the most vicious armed criminals in the nation, ranks 89th out of 90 U.S. Attorney districts. That ranking comes from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), which provides the gold-standard review of federal law enforcement performance.
Given thousands of violent crimes involving armed criminals, including record numbers of murders every year, Chicago has seen pathetically few federal gun-law prosecutions: 63 in fiscal year 2011.
How many of the 506 murders involving firearms in Chicago last year would never have happened had Obama’s Justice Department taken criminals off the streets?
A simple look at the law answers that question. Everything real violent criminals do to acquire a firearm is already a serious federal felony. Under federal law, lying to a licensed dealer, lying on the form 4473, and straw sales are all federal felonies that are almost never prosecuted. Holder’s Justice Department calls them “paper violations.” Yet those are the very crimes that they say demand a “universal background check”—a national registration scheme—for all of us.
So let me cite—from a federal public defender fact sheet—a few of the existing federal statutes dealing with armed criminals once they have their guns. I’ll give you the prison term first along with the citations in the United States Code (U.S.C.).
• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, fugitive, or drug user… And possession means touching a gun, any gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun. Any firearm that Dianne Feinstein would ban for us, is already an illegal gun for violent criminals.
• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.
• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.
• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.
• 5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.
• The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.
• 15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.
• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(g)—for interstate travel to acquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes.
So, if every possible aspect of acquisition, possession, transport, transfer of a firearm by criminals demands harsh and swift punishment under existing law, what is it that Emanuel, Bloomberg and President Obama really want?
To criminalize—then prosecute—everything that we do as law-abiding, peaceable citizens who own and use firearms.
I want to ask a favor. Copy this column and give it to people in the media and to politicians. Put them on notice that their ignorance of law, feigned or real, and their unwillingness to push for prosecution of real criminals using existing federal law cannot be tolerated—EVER! Otherwise these agenda-driven politicians are complicit in criminal violence.
Post by: csaaphill on April 25, 2013, 09:10:02 PM
Post by: ICEMAN on April 26, 2013, 06:00:29 AM
Their are a lot of people out there who should not have guns....how do you guys think we should prevent them from having them?
Enforcing existing laws. Tougher penalties for crimes committed with firearms.
Floundr, don't go throwing logic into the discussion, you are wasting your breath.
Post by: Special T on April 26, 2013, 07:47:52 AM
The justice system is designed to work on 2 levels. The first is to punish via Money. Most of society can be kept in check to basic laws because we are not total degenerates. Loosing money is enough of a motivator to keep us on the straight and narrow. The second level is though imprisonment. Hard core criminals create VOLUMES of destruction in thier wake. By taking them out of circulation there is an unmeasurable return on their incarceration.