Guns, People & The Law

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I propose that the following will eliminate criminal use of firearms as well as prevent them from fathering young criminals who will load down the welfare system.

I propose a national law that will give the death penalty to anyone who is convicted of commiting a felony crime while in posession of a firearm. I also propose this be carried out within six months of the conviction.

Let's stop punishing the legal gun owners and firearms manufacturers and put the blame where it belongs. On the people who commit the crimes.(punish criminals...what a concept) Present laws are not enough to deter the folks who are commiting gun crimes and we need to step things up a notch.

I would further sell hunting licenses to folks so they could bag gang bangers legally. At the facility selling hunting licenses there could be a list of the known gang bangers that it would be legal for them to kill.




posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
groingrinder, the death penalty is incredibly expensive, and your entire idea would elminate the appeals process and is therefore unconstitutional

i say we just give them life in prison, it's much cheaper than the death penalty

also, the whole "let's hunt people in gangs" thing is punishing people for associating with certain people...
freedom of associatian, anyone?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
why shouldn't we be allowed to purchase them?

i don't see any reason why you would need to use them
what use would you have for any of those weapons?


Why would anybody need a car that can go faster than 65MPH. Thats the speed limit in most states. Why whould anybody need a HD tv, a regular TV works fine. Why would anyone need a $50 dollar steak when McDonalds hamburgers will feed you. Why would anybody need a bottle of Dom P. when beer will do the same thing.

It is not about NEEDING one, it is about the freedom to choose to have one. I Do not need anyone telling me that because they dont see a reason for me to have it, I cannot buy it. I am not a child. I work for my money, I pay my bills, I pay my taxes, I dont break the law so why should you or anyone else assume that I am going to go out and go "postal" just because I own an assult type rifle?

As far as the mortars and RPGs, let me ammend my previous answer to include "and accountability"

Dont take this as a "flame" it is just food for thought. Think about freedom.
Also I do not own any assault type firearms, I own about 10 firearms all together. Most are lever action rifles and revolvers pistols. I am just defending everyones right to own any type of weapon.

Thank you for participating in this discussion.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
GroinGrinder
Please put more thought into your posts. It is post and opinions like yours that give antigun advocate reasons to pass antigun bills. You just played into the sterotype that they use as propoganda.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
For those that have trouble understanding the Wording of the 2nd Amendment. (Although as short and clear as it is, I have no idea why)

Here is the ACTUAL definition of a Militia.


Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
US Code


That means EVERYONE folks. ALL Citizens of the US fall into one or more category and so their RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms, SHOULD NEVER be infringed.

So many people comment on the Right to Vote (No such thing), the Right to Not show an ID (No Such Thing) on and on and on. Here we have a RIGHT that is clear, concise and absolute. The problem is that there is a LARGE segment of our great country that feels they should be telling us how to live, what to think and what we should own.

This pesky little CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment gets in their way. So they are going to do everything and anything they can to get rid of it. This includes "Skewing" crime stats, NEVER, I mean NEVER posting the news where a gun owner saved themselves or another because they HAD a gun and other even more nefarious methods....

From one Cops opinion, The more GOOD people we have with guns out there, the safer I feel...

Semper



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
To thelibra for your post on deterrence:


You have voted thelibra for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


One of the most well-written posts I've ever seen here, and it doesn't even matter whether I agree with him or not.


On another matter, I think we'll see more challenges to the 2nd amendment come January.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

On another matter, I think we'll see more challenges to the 2nd amendment come January.



I agree...

I mean just follow history. That was Hitlers first move once he was in power as well. So I fully expect the Democrats to follow in his footsteps.

Semper



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Which brings up an interesting point. The Republicans are always the ones that are accused of instilling a police state. But when you think about it, the Dems are the ones who favor cradle-to-grave control in the form of larger gov't. Stifling the 2nd Amendment serves that goal quite nicely.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
To thelibra for your post on deterrence:


You have voted thelibra for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


One of the most well-written posts I've ever seen here, and it doesn't even matter whether I agree with him or not.


On another matter, I think we'll see more challenges to the 2nd amendment come January.


Why thank you, JSobecky. I know we don't see eye to eye on a number of things, so that actually means a lot coming from you.

As for challenges to the 2nd Amendment. I'll be curious to see what happens, myself. To be honest thought, I don't think Democrats actively seek to remove one of our basic Bill of Rights.

However, since the Supreme Court has been shifted towards the more conservative side, my guess is that they will shoot down any efforts to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment if it's anything other than a token law.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
I don't think Democrats actively seek to remove one of our basic Bill of Rights.


Surely, you jest.

Have you forgotten the Clinton administration already, or were you not yet born?

Regard:

Chameleon Democrats Can't Truly Change if They Don't Know Why

Democrats push Republicans to pass gun control legislation, now

Dems Have Not Dropped Gun Control Agenda

Democrats are toning down the rhetoric on gun control because they know it is a policy albatross about their necks, but don't let them fool you. Give them enough power and you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.

Google Search

[edit on 2006/12/11 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Surely, you jest.

Have you forgotten the Clinton administration already, or were you not yet born?


Hell, Grady, I remember FORD, you should know by now I'm one of our older (though not exactly wiser) members. I am well aware that democrats have typically been in favor of gun control, and that some rallied for it harder than others.

Still, painting the agendas of an entire political party with the same brush is foolish, and even more so is defining the paint as one solid color rather than various hues. It's extremely easy and lazy to say all democrats want to remove the 2nd Amendment and take away our guns, but it doesn't make it true.

I mean, really, think about it. What you are basically accusing Democrats of is wanting to rescind one of our 10 prime rights in the Constitution. That's absurd. Perhaps the most extreme leftist liberal democrats might consider such a thing, but don't go assuming that of the entire party.

There is a huge difference between wanting to have at least some token measure of control over the sale of guns, and the desire to rescind the 2nd Ammendment. And I'm surprised that you of all people would fall into the trap of not seeing that difference, you normally have a much more lucid outside view of things.

A lot has changed since Democrats were last in power. The world has changed, America has changed, and a whole new generation of voters has come to the polls while another has died off. Before going and denouncing an entire half of your nation, how about you let them serve a day in office first, and see what they do, rather than what their predecessors did.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
No one banned more guns with a single signature than Bush the Elder, but the fact remains that gun control is a key plank of the Democrat platform, even if it is conveniently obsured by that populist throw rug.

There are pro-gun Democrats (Bill Richardson) and anti-gun Republicans (Rudy Giuliani), but on the whole, the Democrats, the party of choice of the left wing, are not favorably disposed to the Second Amendment.

I'm sorry about not remembering your demographic profile. It wasn't intended as an insult. We have members for whom the 20th century is ancient history.

Arms-Bearing Can Bear the Defeat

Dems Have Not Dropped Gun Control Agenda



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
No one banned more guns with a single signature than Bush the Elder, but the fact remains that gun control is a key plank of the Democrat platform, even if it is conveniently obsured by that populist throw rug.

There are pro-gun Democrats (Bill Richardson) and anti-gun Republicans (Rudy Giuliani), but on the whole, the Democrats, the party of choice of the left wing, are not favorably disposed to the Second Amendment.


And I'd be happy to concede that Democrats, on the whole, are more inclined towards gun control than Republicans....buuuuuut, I'd still take issue with the claim the Democratic party would try and rescind the 2nd Amendment altogether. There really is, IMO, a big difference between the two. I guess one of the advantages of being a moderate is being able to look at a party without assuming it's members are out to destroy America on purpose.

...note the use of "on purpose". I'm sure Republicans had good intentions when they attempted to bypass our Consitutional right to privacy with the whole "Domestic Surveillance" thing. But I wouldn't go so far as to say Republicans want to remove Privacy and Free Speech from our Bill of Rights... rather I would say their poor choice in policy and towing the party line blinded most of them to the consequences of their actions until it was too late.

And for all I know it might end up working the same way with Democrats. Perhaps legislation will be passed that does not rescind the 2nd Amendment, but enacts legislation backed by "special executive order" that effectively nullifies it. And by the time people realize what's happened, you'd see a major stance shift by the Democrats, the same way we did with the Republicans.

If the Dems are SMART though, they'll use their chance in power to enact legislation that keeps the nation as a whole happy enough to re-elect them, and banning guns would NOT be a very smart move.


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm sorry about not remembering your demographic profile. It wasn't intended as an insult. We have members for whom the 20th century is ancient history.


No offense taken, Grady. I know exactly what you mean.

One of the reasons I rememebred you is cause you're one of the fellow oldsters.





 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join