Gun control by firearms enthusiasts. Your thoughts.
- Thread starter JohnL2
- Start date
- Status
Frog48
Member
The "answer" depends entirely upon which criminological theory you subcribe to.
With that said, none of them fit all crimes, so there is no "answer".
With that said, none of them fit all crimes, so there is no "answer".
Gunnerpalace
Member
Isn't that similar to Sarah Brady owning a gun.........Oh wait I forgot!
So far I've seen nothing to convince me that gun control laws keep criminals from getting or using guns any more than our drug laws keep criminals from using illegal drugs. Both seem terribly wasteful and of little help to society to me, although I'm welcome to evidence to the contrary.
My completely amateur view of it is that there seems to be a very large recidivism rate with violent criminals, usually long before it gets to murder. It seems as though if we want to make society safer we may need to change our sentencing and quit giving violent criminals so many chances to do it again.
My completely amateur view of it is that there seems to be a very large recidivism rate with violent criminals, usually long before it gets to murder. It seems as though if we want to make society safer we may need to change our sentencing and quit giving violent criminals so many chances to do it again.
jefnvk
Member
To me, the issue goes past firearms. Unfortunately, there are too many people walking around who really should not be on the streets.
Go back to actually holding people accountable for what they have done, dont be releasing murders and rapists on good behavior, and to me, then the issue becomes pretty clear.
I don't mind background checks, however, I'd rather just not let people out of prison who couldnt be completely trusted. If that happened, background checks would be poinless. I'd rather have society at a point where jails were for those who couldn't be trusted, not used for punishment. You rape or kill someone, hang 'em. You commit fraud? Well, jail isn't really where you belong. You oughta be out workign to pay off the fraud you committed, with some interest. You've committed armed robbery, assualt with a deadly weapon? You get to sit around until you learn to function in society, and then your rights are restored.
Most other rules are stupid, though.
Go back to actually holding people accountable for what they have done, dont be releasing murders and rapists on good behavior, and to me, then the issue becomes pretty clear.
I don't mind background checks, however, I'd rather just not let people out of prison who couldnt be completely trusted. If that happened, background checks would be poinless. I'd rather have society at a point where jails were for those who couldn't be trusted, not used for punishment. You rape or kill someone, hang 'em. You commit fraud? Well, jail isn't really where you belong. You oughta be out workign to pay off the fraud you committed, with some interest. You've committed armed robbery, assualt with a deadly weapon? You get to sit around until you learn to function in society, and then your rights are restored.
Most other rules are stupid, though.
Stretchman
member
Gun laws don't mean anything if no laws are enforced. That's the reason for the 2nd amendment. When everything goes kaflooey, then we will all be glad we got guns and the ammo for them.
Doesn't matter if it take 2 minutes or two weeks to get a gun. Once you have it, and it is secured, secreted, whatever you do with it, you have it, and it is there for you. You may forget about it, but when something like 9/11 happens, out it comes, and there you are.
Now criminals, who use a gun as a matter of convenience, are always concerned with their firearms. So are the paranoid people who think everyone is a criminal. These are the guys with college degrees who seem to find themselves in the seedy part of town more often than not, and who need a gun for self defense. CWP is good to have, but the point is, that any weapon that is effective and you can employ will work. Same same the criminal.
Not having guns won't stop criminals from crime. they'll use bats, chains, rope, knives, mace, anything they can think of to take your money. They may even simply go bare handed.
Having a gun is a bonus, because just like the aforementioned people wandering the bad sections of town in the wee hours, it levels the playing field. Will not having a gun keep you from being able to defend yourself? Not me, but I speak from personal experieence.
But I don't have or carry a gun because I need one, unless I am working. I vastly prefer the blade. I have a gun when I want one. That's what these guys are trying to say.
Should criminals have guns too? Only if you want to be able to kill them. Otherwise, no. But the truth is, and I am sure most people will agree, is if the righteous have guns, then the criminals will too. If the righteous have no guns, with 80 million or so in the States alone, it's a coin toss as to whether or not you'll be robbed or raped by someone using one. Look at the old west. criminals had guns. So did other people. they'd duel it out in the streets and the victors got to walk away, without facing jail or anything else. You didn't steal a man's horse, shoot him in the back, or kill him in his sleep if you wanted to live. Now, all of the above is common. So who is to say?
I would love to live in a non violent society. So far, the closest I have come was in Europe, where people have manners and respect for each other. In the USA, in Miami, where I grew up, violence was a daily occurence. Gunfire, every single day. people are rude, angry, full of rage, hopped up on dope, and in general, hate each other. What a paradise. Wouldn't want t live anywhere else. Yeah, right. But it makes me glad I have a gun if I need one.
Doesn't matter if it take 2 minutes or two weeks to get a gun. Once you have it, and it is secured, secreted, whatever you do with it, you have it, and it is there for you. You may forget about it, but when something like 9/11 happens, out it comes, and there you are.
Now criminals, who use a gun as a matter of convenience, are always concerned with their firearms. So are the paranoid people who think everyone is a criminal. These are the guys with college degrees who seem to find themselves in the seedy part of town more often than not, and who need a gun for self defense. CWP is good to have, but the point is, that any weapon that is effective and you can employ will work. Same same the criminal.
Not having guns won't stop criminals from crime. they'll use bats, chains, rope, knives, mace, anything they can think of to take your money. They may even simply go bare handed.
Having a gun is a bonus, because just like the aforementioned people wandering the bad sections of town in the wee hours, it levels the playing field. Will not having a gun keep you from being able to defend yourself? Not me, but I speak from personal experieence.
But I don't have or carry a gun because I need one, unless I am working. I vastly prefer the blade. I have a gun when I want one. That's what these guys are trying to say.
Should criminals have guns too? Only if you want to be able to kill them. Otherwise, no. But the truth is, and I am sure most people will agree, is if the righteous have guns, then the criminals will too. If the righteous have no guns, with 80 million or so in the States alone, it's a coin toss as to whether or not you'll be robbed or raped by someone using one. Look at the old west. criminals had guns. So did other people. they'd duel it out in the streets and the victors got to walk away, without facing jail or anything else. You didn't steal a man's horse, shoot him in the back, or kill him in his sleep if you wanted to live. Now, all of the above is common. So who is to say?
I would love to live in a non violent society. So far, the closest I have come was in Europe, where people have manners and respect for each other. In the USA, in Miami, where I grew up, violence was a daily occurence. Gunfire, every single day. people are rude, angry, full of rage, hopped up on dope, and in general, hate each other. What a paradise. Wouldn't want t live anywhere else. Yeah, right. But it makes me glad I have a gun if I need one.
I have a few basic points:
1. Gun laws make it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms and allow them to be punished for possessing them.
2. Providing for public safety is a legitimate role of government.
3. Guns are tools. They can be used by good people for doing good things, or by bad people for doing bad things. Since bad people will always be able to acquire guns (as they do drugs), it makes no sense to limit everyone's firearm priviledges. Moreover, good people are able to overcome bad people since there are more good people than bad people.
4. Gun regulation has little effect on crime. Depending on the area, it might reduce it, leave it unchanged, or increase it.
5. Any regulation on guns, even if the public becomes safer, is unnacceptable. The people of the world need to be armed to prevent human rights violations. In countries around the world, such as Cambodia, Rwanda, Guatemala, and the People's Republic of China, to name a few, unarmed civilians have experienced grave violations of their rights and genocide. Need I even add that the United Nations has not prevented any of these violations?
6. Background checks should be eliminated immediately. A) They are backdoor registration, B) People who can't buy guns should be in jail, C) Criminals can use straw purchases anyways, D) Most background checks are conducted on people who already own guns that they could use in crimes if they wanted, E) They can delay purchases for people who need personal protection immediately, F) In our legal system, people are generally innocent until proven guilty.
7. In theory, it would make sense for guns to be registered to keep them from criminals, etc. However, around the world, and in Commonwealth countries especially, this has resulted in widespread confiscation of arms. In South Africa, it used to be that nearly every white citizen carried a weapon. In 2004 the black government instituted a registration/permit system. Every gun owner has had to re-register their firearms. Re-registration is usually denied or takes up to 2 years to be completed.
8. Disarming evil people is a good idea in theory, however the UN has found this can be slightly difficult. The UN experienced their greatest combat loss of peacekeepers in 1993 in Somalia when they attempted to go door-to-door confiscating arms from members of Mohammed Aidid's militia. The militia had been hoarding (badly needed) food. The UN ended up losing 24 peacekeepers in an ambush.
9. Saying that guns are just like knives or gasoline or tow trucks is kind of silly. Guns are designed to expel projectiles, aimed, and very high velocities. Basically the only practical purpose of guns is to kill or stop a human or an animal. This isn't true of tow trucks.
10. Explosives such as grenades may be regulated, in my opinion. Of course, this prohibition would do little to stop criminals from having explosives (IEDs in Iraq, etc.), however, I consider them offensive weapons, unlike rifles or machine guns which are suited to defense and can be aimed with precision. I don't feel comfortable with ANYONE having NBC weapons.
11. The best way to punish criminals is to shoot them in the act. Failing that, punish them for murder, rape, or whatever they did, but don't single them out for possession or use of firearms.
1. Gun laws make it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms and allow them to be punished for possessing them.
2. Providing for public safety is a legitimate role of government.
3. Guns are tools. They can be used by good people for doing good things, or by bad people for doing bad things. Since bad people will always be able to acquire guns (as they do drugs), it makes no sense to limit everyone's firearm priviledges. Moreover, good people are able to overcome bad people since there are more good people than bad people.
4. Gun regulation has little effect on crime. Depending on the area, it might reduce it, leave it unchanged, or increase it.
5. Any regulation on guns, even if the public becomes safer, is unnacceptable. The people of the world need to be armed to prevent human rights violations. In countries around the world, such as Cambodia, Rwanda, Guatemala, and the People's Republic of China, to name a few, unarmed civilians have experienced grave violations of their rights and genocide. Need I even add that the United Nations has not prevented any of these violations?
6. Background checks should be eliminated immediately. A) They are backdoor registration, B) People who can't buy guns should be in jail, C) Criminals can use straw purchases anyways, D) Most background checks are conducted on people who already own guns that they could use in crimes if they wanted, E) They can delay purchases for people who need personal protection immediately, F) In our legal system, people are generally innocent until proven guilty.
7. In theory, it would make sense for guns to be registered to keep them from criminals, etc. However, around the world, and in Commonwealth countries especially, this has resulted in widespread confiscation of arms. In South Africa, it used to be that nearly every white citizen carried a weapon. In 2004 the black government instituted a registration/permit system. Every gun owner has had to re-register their firearms. Re-registration is usually denied or takes up to 2 years to be completed.
8. Disarming evil people is a good idea in theory, however the UN has found this can be slightly difficult. The UN experienced their greatest combat loss of peacekeepers in 1993 in Somalia when they attempted to go door-to-door confiscating arms from members of Mohammed Aidid's militia. The militia had been hoarding (badly needed) food. The UN ended up losing 24 peacekeepers in an ambush.
9. Saying that guns are just like knives or gasoline or tow trucks is kind of silly. Guns are designed to expel projectiles, aimed, and very high velocities. Basically the only practical purpose of guns is to kill or stop a human or an animal. This isn't true of tow trucks.
10. Explosives such as grenades may be regulated, in my opinion. Of course, this prohibition would do little to stop criminals from having explosives (IEDs in Iraq, etc.), however, I consider them offensive weapons, unlike rifles or machine guns which are suited to defense and can be aimed with precision. I don't feel comfortable with ANYONE having NBC weapons.
11. The best way to punish criminals is to shoot them in the act. Failing that, punish them for murder, rape, or whatever they did, but don't single them out for possession or use of firearms.
I've only used my pocket knife to open boxes and I've only used my firearms for recreational hole punching. Both could be used against a person, what is the actual difference? Don't get me wrong, thats not an argument I like to make anyway because I don't think there's anything wrong with saying sometimes people need to get shot. I'm just curious though why both are multipurpose items yet the guns purpose to you is shooting living creatures?
Doesn't the nature of the 2nd amendment include offensive uses of firearms?
The problem is, that everything in the discussion is a matter of degrees.
We talk about "gun" laws, but in truth the 2nd amendment that we champion the defense of reads "arms". Most people, pro-RKBA or not, are going to agree that there needs to be some regulation of "arms". I'm sure there are those who would argue that your average law abiding citizen should be able to purchase a SAM battery if he can swing the cash, but I'm not one of them, to me that defies common sense.
So, once that step is made, the right to keep and bear arms is already "infringed" upon, because obviously there are levels of armament that do need to be controlled. Given that, the argument becomes not "should our rights be infringed" but "how much can / will we allow our rights to be infringed?".
In stepping from "arms" to "Firearms" the concession is already made, then it becomes entirely about where the line is drawn after that. I'm not about to volunteer my opinion on where that line should be, but I do think it's counter productive to blindly state that any gun owner who is favor of ANY gun laws is "the enemy". Everyone is in favor of arms control, to a certain degree..... of course someone will say that they're not, great, the guy with the suitcase nuke can live on YOUR block then, eh?
Given that I think the differing factions within our community could treat each other with a little more respect when these issues arise, rather than making rabid statements along the lines of "Any concession is cowardice / failure" etc. We're all making concessions already whether we want to cop to it or not.
We talk about "gun" laws, but in truth the 2nd amendment that we champion the defense of reads "arms". Most people, pro-RKBA or not, are going to agree that there needs to be some regulation of "arms". I'm sure there are those who would argue that your average law abiding citizen should be able to purchase a SAM battery if he can swing the cash, but I'm not one of them, to me that defies common sense.
So, once that step is made, the right to keep and bear arms is already "infringed" upon, because obviously there are levels of armament that do need to be controlled. Given that, the argument becomes not "should our rights be infringed" but "how much can / will we allow our rights to be infringed?".
In stepping from "arms" to "Firearms" the concession is already made, then it becomes entirely about where the line is drawn after that. I'm not about to volunteer my opinion on where that line should be, but I do think it's counter productive to blindly state that any gun owner who is favor of ANY gun laws is "the enemy". Everyone is in favor of arms control, to a certain degree..... of course someone will say that they're not, great, the guy with the suitcase nuke can live on YOUR block then, eh?
Given that I think the differing factions within our community could treat each other with a little more respect when these issues arise, rather than making rabid statements along the lines of "Any concession is cowardice / failure" etc. We're all making concessions already whether we want to cop to it or not.
Powderman
Member
I believe that laws restricting the ownership of firearms are foolish at best.
As has been said before, over and over again, punish the CRIMINAL, not the item. It's actually a simple concept.
The law says that a person who commits crime must satisfy the elements of crime. The biggest element, IMHO, is INTENT.
A person who commits a crime usually has to form an intent to commit the crime.
Of course, we also must consider negligence and recklessness. But the final element is also of importance: It's called knowledge--the knowledge that what you were about to do was a criminal act.
Our definitions of offenses are divided into two major classifications: malum in se and malum prohibitum.
Malum in se crimes are "bad in and of themselves". These are the crimes that are against persons: Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape and Kidnapping, and of course, Murder; and the sundry attempts thereof. My view? Punish these swiftly, severely, without possibility of parole. Burglars go to prison for a long time, and pay restitution. Same for arsonists, if no one is hurt or killed. Kidnappers? Life without parole.
Rapists, and murderers? Death. Period.
Totally decriminalize and hold harmless a potential victim who hurts or kills their assailant during an attack.
Encourage the personal ownership of arms, and the carrying of such arms.
If this were done, watch the crime rate fall through the floor.
Sadly, there is almost no chance of anything like this coming to pass. But it sure sounds sweet, doesn't it?
As has been said before, over and over again, punish the CRIMINAL, not the item. It's actually a simple concept.
The law says that a person who commits crime must satisfy the elements of crime. The biggest element, IMHO, is INTENT.
A person who commits a crime usually has to form an intent to commit the crime.
Of course, we also must consider negligence and recklessness. But the final element is also of importance: It's called knowledge--the knowledge that what you were about to do was a criminal act.
Our definitions of offenses are divided into two major classifications: malum in se and malum prohibitum.
Malum in se crimes are "bad in and of themselves". These are the crimes that are against persons: Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape and Kidnapping, and of course, Murder; and the sundry attempts thereof. My view? Punish these swiftly, severely, without possibility of parole. Burglars go to prison for a long time, and pay restitution. Same for arsonists, if no one is hurt or killed. Kidnappers? Life without parole.
Rapists, and murderers? Death. Period.
Totally decriminalize and hold harmless a potential victim who hurts or kills their assailant during an attack.
Encourage the personal ownership of arms, and the carrying of such arms.
If this were done, watch the crime rate fall through the floor.
Sadly, there is almost no chance of anything like this coming to pass. But it sure sounds sweet, doesn't it?
Noxx
The legitimate rule with ANY weapon is that you cannot subject innocent people to any substantial risks arising from your possession or use of the weapon without crossing the line into behavior that can legitimately be prohibited.
Because you’re not USING “common sense.” If said citizen is, in fact, law-abiding, what exactly is the problem? Think about it. Anything bad that can be done with a SAM would violate the law.
If he can do so without subjecting me to the threat of harm, then fine by me. Do you know of a way he could do that? I don’t.
The legitimate rule with ANY weapon is that you cannot subject innocent people to any substantial risks arising from your possession or use of the weapon without crossing the line into behavior that can legitimately be prohibited.
jefnvk
Member
And you know, people that hate guns also think that there is no way that they can just sit around without hurting anyone.
How is having a SAM any safer than having a suitcase nuke?
jefnvk
Member
If a SAM accidently goes off in your backyard, that damage isn't going to leave your back yard?
And there has got to be a way to shield your house to keep radiation from leaving.
And there has got to be a way to shield your house to keep radiation from leaving.
Zundfolge
Member
I disagree, gun laws don't make it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms ... I don't think most people understand how incredibly easy it is to buy black market firearms. All gun laws do is make it more difficult for the law abiding to buy firearms.
As for punishing criminals for possessing them, nobody should ever be punished for the mere possession of anything. People should be punished for what they actually do, not what they might do. Punishing people for possessing firearms completely eliminates the notion of "innocent until proved guilty".
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Start off with no restrictions beyond the 1934 machine gun thing. Okay, a criminal can go into the local friendly gun store and buy a gun, same as an honest man. If honest folks are able to carry their own means of self defense, how many of these criminal types are actually gonna go do robberies? We already know from centuries of experience that there will always be some low level of crime, but it only increases when it's safer for criminals to be criminal. It's a risk/reward thing.
However: Where would the holdup guy who hits the Stop'n'Robs get the purchase money? If he had a job where he could afford to buy a pistol, he wouldn't need to do the holdups. He's doing holdups 'cause he's broke, which means he ain't going to Gus' Gunshop. He's stealing his guns...
So we pass a law which sez, "Crooks can't buy or own guns." Fine. They steal them, just as before the law was passed. And we know that they do have guns, right? The law did not stop the crook from getting a gun from somewhere.
Point me out a gun control law which has led to a reduction in violent crime rates where firearms are involved. Statistical analyses have concluded that such has never, ever happened. Check out the works of Wright/Rossi/Daly, particularly their "Under The Gun".
A law merely provides for punishment; it does not prevent. It's against the law to rob somebody, whether via firearm or verbal threat. It's against the law to commit murder, regardless of the sort of weapon.
So I wanna know what law would be efficacious, has been efficacious, in reducing the rate of violent crimes involving firearms. Over the last forty or so years that I've been asking that question, the response rate has been batting 0.000.
Lay all this on the gun-grabbers: Ask them to name those laws which did something to reduce gun crimes. Think back the brouhaha in 1968. That was gonna make the world all safe, warm and fuzzy. Oops! So we had the Assault Weapons ban, which did, I'll admit, reduce drive-by bayonettings. And? And?
All that the machine gun ban did was raise the cost of existing full-auto toys; it did zero, zilch, zip, nada to reduce the rate of full-auto crimes to below-zero. Sorta hard to achieve below-zero crime rates, seems to me.
Well, okay, sorry. It's sorta hard to be other than sarcastic when dealing with this foolishness--but repeat after me: "Laws don't prevent crimes."
Art
However: Where would the holdup guy who hits the Stop'n'Robs get the purchase money? If he had a job where he could afford to buy a pistol, he wouldn't need to do the holdups. He's doing holdups 'cause he's broke, which means he ain't going to Gus' Gunshop. He's stealing his guns...
So we pass a law which sez, "Crooks can't buy or own guns." Fine. They steal them, just as before the law was passed. And we know that they do have guns, right? The law did not stop the crook from getting a gun from somewhere.
Point me out a gun control law which has led to a reduction in violent crime rates where firearms are involved. Statistical analyses have concluded that such has never, ever happened. Check out the works of Wright/Rossi/Daly, particularly their "Under The Gun".
A law merely provides for punishment; it does not prevent. It's against the law to rob somebody, whether via firearm or verbal threat. It's against the law to commit murder, regardless of the sort of weapon.
So I wanna know what law would be efficacious, has been efficacious, in reducing the rate of violent crimes involving firearms. Over the last forty or so years that I've been asking that question, the response rate has been batting 0.000.
Lay all this on the gun-grabbers: Ask them to name those laws which did something to reduce gun crimes. Think back the brouhaha in 1968. That was gonna make the world all safe, warm and fuzzy. Oops! So we had the Assault Weapons ban, which did, I'll admit, reduce drive-by bayonettings. And? And?
All that the machine gun ban did was raise the cost of existing full-auto toys; it did zero, zilch, zip, nada to reduce the rate of full-auto crimes to below-zero. Sorta hard to achieve below-zero crime rates, seems to me.
Well, okay, sorry. It's sorta hard to be other than sarcastic when dealing with this foolishness--but repeat after me: "Laws don't prevent crimes."
Art
ctdonath
Member
The limit on the 2nd Amendment is ... the 2nd Amendment.
The same right that lets someone else have whatever weapon physics & wallet & wife allow, lets YOU be suitably armed to deal with him if he abuses his right.
The same right that lets someone else have whatever weapon physics & wallet & wife allow, lets YOU be suitably armed to deal with him if he abuses his right.
IndianaBoy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,551
Almost every gun law on the books is unconstitutional.
I have no problem with VIOLENT felons being denied the right to own firearms. Also those of diminished mental capacity or children, who may not understand the gravity of misuse.
Everything else is a load of horse squeeze. NFA, SBR, permits to acquire, waiting periods.... all of it a farce to disarm the populace, none of it successfully inhibiting criminals from inflicting damage on the citizenry.
I have no problem with VIOLENT felons being denied the right to own firearms. Also those of diminished mental capacity or children, who may not understand the gravity of misuse.
Everything else is a load of horse squeeze. NFA, SBR, permits to acquire, waiting periods.... all of it a farce to disarm the populace, none of it successfully inhibiting criminals from inflicting damage on the citizenry.
Baron Holbach4
Member
Two thumbs up.zxcvbob
Member
IMHO (and this is supported by the Miller supreme court decision) the line is already defined in the 2A: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The arms recognized and protected are those one would expect an infantryman might have when called into service. Basically, anything he could carry and appropriate for battle should be OK (including grenades and LMG's)
The crew-served weapons would be kept at the armory, and not protected by the second amendment. (but not prohibited either, and might be protected by the 4A)
Bob
jefnvk
Member
My biggest problem with this: if you are using what someone in the militia would personally carry as weapon as the basis for what is legal, it really isnt much of a stretch to say then that only those eligible for the militia can have arms, i.e. free able-bodied men from 18-45.
zxcvbob
Member
The rest of us would then be protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the right of the people to bear arms does not flow from the needs of the militia. The militia is possible because the people -- all people -- have a right to arms. That's probably why the sentence is structured so the first part is a dependant clause and the last part is an independant clause. (I don't think they teach that is schools anymore)
Best regards,
Bob
I believe in National CCW allowed. I believe the "assault weapon ban" should be allowed to die and never come back. I believe in Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws. But I do believe there is some responsibility at point of sale to make sure you are not selling to a convicted felon or a person with a diagnosed mental disorder. So for those two reasons I do believe a background check process is valid.
And I do believe in a conservative judicial system that absolutely punishes misuse of firearms.
Maybe it is the humanist side of me asserting itself but I think these are reasonable verifications. Anything else I would look askance at.
I agree that our penal system is rather uneven and very possibly dysfunctional. It is getting worse. Not better. Liberals in our society need to face a certain truth that if you do let some of these convicts out at the end of incarceration, or even commute their sentence, there is a high likelihood of recidivism. There is nothing more infuriating to me than to hear a story of someone let of prison only to murder again. And it is rather exasperating to think some people want to let these people out of jail and give them a chance and then go about disarming decent people by banning or restricting guns. That misfire of logic takes my breath away.
One thing is true though. There will always be psychopaths and sociopaths. Put one away and another will soon take his place. And I do not trust the police to always be there or be on time.
Strong defense. See my sig line below. Be strong be safe.
And I do believe in a conservative judicial system that absolutely punishes misuse of firearms.
Maybe it is the humanist side of me asserting itself but I think these are reasonable verifications. Anything else I would look askance at.
I agree that our penal system is rather uneven and very possibly dysfunctional. It is getting worse. Not better. Liberals in our society need to face a certain truth that if you do let some of these convicts out at the end of incarceration, or even commute their sentence, there is a high likelihood of recidivism. There is nothing more infuriating to me than to hear a story of someone let of prison only to murder again. And it is rather exasperating to think some people want to let these people out of jail and give them a chance and then go about disarming decent people by banning or restricting guns. That misfire of logic takes my breath away.
One thing is true though. There will always be psychopaths and sociopaths. Put one away and another will soon take his place. And I do not trust the police to always be there or be on time.
Strong defense. See my sig line below. Be strong be safe.
Last edited:
Deavis
Member
I tend to agree with you despite the hooplah against that position. You can't support the disarming of felons without identifying them somehow. If we had a truly effective justice system then people too dangerous to buy a weapon wouldn't be on the streets. We don't so until you do you have to have some soultion to maintain the anti-felon law. I think the solution is purging them from the streets but people aren't willing to pay the cost to keep them behind bars or they are unwilling to stomach removing them from this earth permanently despite their henious crimes.
- Status