Who Agrees With This Line Of Thinking?


PDA






Magnuumpwr
March 28, 2005, 01:34 AM
IMO new gun laws are not needed, but stiffer penalties for the existing ones are. If a gun is used in the commission of a crime whether fired or not the perp should face the same penalty as a murderer. Murderers, who are on video or admit to committing the crime, should be sentenced to death not death row. No, I don't consider self-defense murder, but self-preservation. Gun banning laws are not meant to protect people, but are meant to make subjects of them. :banghead: Ask the English or countless others. We, gun owners, are a dying breed and if we don't make changes for our future, we won't have one! I am a devoted gun nut and don't think that any one person or any group of people should be able to tell me what guns or how many I can own! :fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "Who Agrees With This Line Of Thinking?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tom Servo
March 28, 2005, 01:57 AM
IMO new gun laws are not needed, but stiffer penalties for the existing ones are.
+1 to that. I'll add that the existing laws actually need to be ENFORCED, and that "mandatory" sentences need to be just that.

Many cities and states have laws that add five years or so to the original sentence if the crime involved a firearm in any way, but given our revolving-door prison system, there's just no weight behind them.

The best path to real gun-control involves allowing the law-abiding to bear arms and bringing the hammer down hard on those who abuse them.

Fumbler
March 28, 2005, 02:24 AM
IMO new gun laws are not needed, but stiffer penalties for the existing ones are.
I agree with that.

If a gun is used in the commission of a crime whether fired or not the perp should face the same penalty as a murderer.
I do not agree with that.
If that was the case, criminals wouldn't even bother letting their victims live because they would be up for the same punishment anyway.
A common robber is not on the same level as a murderer, the punishment should fit the bill.

Wiley
March 28, 2005, 06:40 AM
I don't agree with that at all.

Guns don't have anything to do with a crime. Murder is murder, robbery is robbery, litering is litering.

IMO new gun laws are not needed, but stiffer penalties for the existing ones are.

To me that says you've bought into liberal thinking hook, line and, sinker. A crime doesn't depend on the instrumentality used in its commission.

q102josh
March 28, 2005, 07:05 AM
i dont agree with that...
1. because of Fumbler's reasons, yeah criminals would have nothing to lose by killing their victims in situations where they would usually let them live
2. left-wingers would only use laws like that as means to further persecute legal gun owners (ie now a person would face murder charges for pointing their legally owned and carried gun at a criminal not shooting the criminal, just the same as if they legally defended themself from being raped or murdered.

jefnvk
March 28, 2005, 08:42 AM
If they are willing to take the punishment for killing someone, what makes you think that an extra five years for using a gun to do it is going to deter them.

Use the laws we already have.

armabill
March 28, 2005, 09:50 AM
You can have all the laws you want. But if the judges don't do their part, it doesn't mean a thing.

Light sentences and/or plea bargains aren't helping either.

Weimadog
March 28, 2005, 10:26 AM
IMO new gun laws are not needed, but stiffer penalties for the existing ones are.


Like, go to prison as a convicted felon because your shotgun barrel is 1/4 inch too short?

Lose your rights because the paperwork was not correct on a firearm transfer?

Facing prosecution because one of your guns malfunctions and goes 'full auto'?

You are assuming the present laws are good ones.

thorn726
March 28, 2005, 09:55 PM
1. because of Fumbler's reasons, yeah criminals would have nothing to lose by killing their victims in situations where they would usually let them live

there. that's what i couldnt think of

DSRUPTV
March 28, 2005, 10:14 PM
I agree with the fact that current "good" laws should be better enforced by the legal system. I also agree that some laws we have are bogus and should be gotten rid of.

Mauserguy
March 28, 2005, 10:45 PM
As a confirmed gun nut, I agree that we don't need anymore gun laws, but I would also say that we need fewer laws than we have. What we need to do is to enforce laws on violent crime, not paperwork violations. As a society we need to vilify criminals who hurt people, not prosecute people who don't fill out the right form.
Mauserguy

EghtySx
March 28, 2005, 11:02 PM
We need stiffer penalties on CRIME. Why do we legislate inanimate objects?

Standing Wolf
March 28, 2005, 11:38 PM
I think we should scrap all the firearms laws but the Second Amendment. All the crimes committed with firearms are already covered by other laws. We don't need to regulate firearms, but criminals.

I didn't say I think any of the above is ever actually going to happen.

Kelsey
March 29, 2005, 12:11 AM
Standing wolf has got this one nailed in my opinion. A crime is a crime. Murder with a gun, pipe, knife, poison, bare hands, etc. is still murder. What we see today is the rational of lack of personal responsibility. No one is responsible for this (fill in the crime) it was the (fill in the objects) fault. How many times have we seen on the news "Today, an SUV struck a familiy of five" when the truth is "a drunk idiot who has his license suspended struck a family of five".

In the gun world, we stuff like "An assualt weapon was used to shoot up a convenience store" when the truth is "a lifetime criminal and gang banger released from jail because he was nice to his fellow inmates shot up a convenience store".

I am a firm believer in punishing to the maximum for major crimes especially repeat offenders. What needs to be applied to our court system is not a Lawyers rational of right and wrong, but a dose of common sense. Justice is when a crime is rightfully punished to the degree of severity as the action committed.


Kelsey
www.luvtohunt.com

Sunray
March 29, 2005, 12:11 AM
"...sentenced to death not death row..." They are. It's your justice system that automatically gives them an appeal upon a capital conviction.
Doing away with plea bargaining and parole would go a long way to sort out a lot of the crime.
Firearm, or anything else, ownership laws should be scrapped. Like Standing Wolf says, it's already illegal to rob and kill.

BigG
March 29, 2005, 08:06 AM
I disagree to the extent that many existing gun laws are not necessary or reasonable.

A crime is a crime whatever the instrumentality. Murder is the same by poison, bludgeoning, or throwing a person off a building. What does the means have to do with anything?

foghornl
March 29, 2005, 08:33 AM
Hmmmmm


here's a concept....

How about CRIMINAL CONTROL instead of gun control?

Fumbler
March 29, 2005, 04:29 PM
Hmmmmm

here's a concept....

How about CRIMINAL CONTROL instead of gun control?

The problem is the sheeple coming up with these laws think all gun owners are criminals :mad:

If you enjoyed reading about "Who Agrees With This Line Of Thinking?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!