[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ... (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/24/2007 8:17:31 AM EDT
| Nevermind. You guys don't want to read my posts? Then I'll stop posting them. |
If you take it as an article of faith that criminals will always get guns, why does restricting the law abiding make sense? |
|
Perhaps I'm just a simple-minded American Patriot, but could someone tell me what form of gun control ISNT bad and ISNT blatantly un-Constitutional? I advocate everyone in America being issued an AK-47, four thirty round magazines, and a case of ammo at birth with DHS (social services and homeland security!) performing at least two checks on children under 21 to ensure weapons familiarity and proficiency in marksmanship. |
Blasphemer! Everyone knows we should be issued HK416's 
|
[redforman]dumbass![/redforman] |
WTF? AK-47's? You are as bad as the antis. |
What good does it do to control the legal market when criminals get their guns off of the black market? 
Wrong. Most criminals can't afford to pay full price for a handgun in the retail market. That is why the go to the black market and buy stolen guns cheap. The people who can afford to buy guns retail are usually not criminals yet and therefore sail through the screening process because they have no record. The criminals who can afford to buy guns retail still usually prefer to go through the black market because the guns are more disposable and less traceable.
A lot. |
 
|
|
It's easier for polticians to pass laws that affect law abiding citizens then it is for them to actually do something about crime and criminals. They already know criminals will not follow existing laws, nor will they follow any laws [firearm or not] that are passed in the future. Thus, any future laws [and many existing ones] only affect those that do not commit crimes in the majority. There are laws against murder, theft, fraud, and rape already in place, how many crimes have those laws PREVENTED or STOPPED? That is your answer, they prevent nothing as an honest man will not do those thing anyways. We can only punish the criminal after the act, we cannot prevent it from happening the vast majority of the time. Why should we treat the honest man or woman with restrictions on firearm ownership with less freedom then the criminal? There is NO law that will force evil or bad people to obey or follow reasonable decorum, therefore, passing laws that take away the means of defense of those that follow reasonable decorum are unreasonable and unjust in and of themselves. |
Oh. Alright. Parents get a choice for their kid: FN-FAL, AK-47, M-16 Happy now? 
|
Yes 
|
|
Another thing you are missing Magic, is that crime has nothing to do with gun control laws. I don't remember mass shootings when there were NO instant background check. I am not old enough to remember, but prior to 1968 there were no restrictions. You could send your 12 year old to the hardware store to buy you a .45. I bet crime rates were much lower then. Someone here posted, it is like drivers speeding through your neighborhood at 90 mph in a 25 mph zone, so you lower the speed limit to 20 mph. Maybe add more questions to written driving exam. Sounds stupid doesn't it. That's gun control. The motive behind this legislation has nothing to do with your safety. They want to end private ownership of guns. If Schumer, Pelosi et al. were interested in your safety, they would be requiring breathalyzers to allow your car to start. Or ban private ownership of swimming pools. The #1 and #2 causes of accidental death in America. Don't be fooled. |
Oh come on. What is wrong with calling a spade a spade? The OP came here, to a gun board, and advocated tighter gun control. If that isn't trolling, then I don't know what is. If went on Democratic Underground and starting railing against Democrats and Democratic politics, I would be banned as a troll, and rightfully so. SteyrAug is locked/banned for posting koran toilet paper, and this gun control advocate is protected? Why? |
seems reasonable to me. Why? |
Because unlike the hypocrites on the left, we believe in free speech at all times, not just when we agree with what is being said. |
3 years and 27K posts and you still think arfcom believe that? 
|
Who benefits from a thread saturated with reasons to abolish gun control? A lot of fence sitters and those too apathetic to invest any thought into their guaranteed rights. Now - who benefits from religious hate speech? No one. What sort of a person needs something that simple explained to him? 
|
I have a friend that's a Postal inspector. He recovered a P90 during an arrest. Not a PS90. a P90 loaded with SS190. Gun laws don't stop criminals |
|
Not only is gun control unconstitutional, but it's just not practical. It doesn't work. If background checks and requirements to own a gun were so strict that criminals could never buy guns legally, they would just get their friend or relative to buy it for them. That's called a 'straw purchase' and I have seen it happen at gun shops more than once already. What makes you think strengthening background checks would slow that down? Waiting periods... carry restrictions.... gun free zones... it's all ridiculous and it never works in reality. |
Hey, um. If he finds a Glock 18... um. Tell him I wanna meet him and congratulate him personally. 
|
How about this for "WHY NOT?" sport. It also keeps me from buying/owning/carrying a gun to protect myself. I hope this was not a serious post. |
He didn't get to keep it. But everyone in his office got to finger fuck it. |
It would be great if that is all the bill did, but it went much further. We are now talking about the expansion of mental illness that would prevent U.S. Military veterans with PTSD from ever owning a firearm regardless of whether they still had symptoms of PTSD. We are also talking about the housing of large amounts of data on private U.S. citizens who have broken no laws simply because they wish to exercise a Constitutional Right. What we are now seeing is the anti-Second Amendment crowd trying to hit us on our flank, because they are starting to recognize that an outright ban will not hold-up. They will attempt to take regulations as far as they can until those regulations are tantamount to a ban. Furthermore, the Federal Government should have no say in who is a member of the Militia. Those requirements should be left up to the states within the frame work of the 2nd and 14th Amendments. |
There is a Federal law that already says that every American male ages 17-46 is a member of the militia. Everyone ignores that law, though, but it makes the "THE SECOND AMMENDMENT IS FOR MILITIA ONLY" argument null and void. |
You seem to be a prime example of fuzzy thinking as promoted by the American educational system. Lets start with "Criminals get guns". The problem is, that if I "get a gun" I am just an ordinary American citizen using my RIGHT to own a firearm. Now, next week I decide to rob a bank using my gun. At that point, I am a criminal using a gun and there are plenty of laws that I broke in doing so - quite enough to put me away for a LONG time if correctly applied. So what can you do to stop me "getting a gun" ? Was I a criminal at the time I acquired it? - no. Was I a criminal when I took it home? - no. Was I a criminal while it sat at home for a week? - no. I only became a criminal when I performed a criminal act. Now, my evil twin (I actually don't have a twin, evil or otherwise, but lets pretend) decides that he is going to rob a bank. He decides that he needs a gun to do so. So he exercises his right as an American citizen to gu out and buy one. He takes it home, and next week robs a bank with it. How do you differentiate between the acts of my evil twin and myself? The ONLY difference is what is in my/his head at the time of purchase. In my case I had no intention of performing a criminal act at the time, my twin did. However, short of reading people's minds there is NO WAY to stop my criminal twin obtaining his gun without infringing upon my (non criminal) rights. Fuzzy thinking leads to prior restraint laws, where you effectively punish people for what they might do, or try to make "things" illegal because of what someone might do with them - I *might* use my car to run you down tomorrow -- does that mean cars should be banned? if your response is no, then how is that any different from the fact that I might use my gun to shoot you tomorrow? Then there are known criminals obtaining guns. The simple answer here is that there is no way to prevent this. They will steal one, or get someone with no criminal record to get one for them. Again, you can't do anything about this without infringing on MY rights. The real answer in all the cases is that you don't try to prevent people from performing criminal acts. Its a waste of time. It doesn't work for any other criminal act, why does anyone think firearms are somehow special and a law can prevent misuse? What you do, is to punish the act (not the potential act). This require a couple of things, one is a much better police force, better trained in solving crimes rather than as JBTs intended to subjugate the population, the other is a much better judiciary, one which encourages respect for the law by applying JUSTICE, that is giving appropriately long sentences where required (no more probation for rape or attempted murder), but appropriately lenient sentences where common sense says this should be the case, rather than blindly applying "policy" sentences. Gun control laws are the result of a "quick fix" approach and often a sign of mental instability on the part of those who propose them, the proposers being frightened by inanimate objects rather than the criminals that wield them. |
I just see it this way, gun control is meant to make law abiding citizens into criminals. We will be on the same playing field eventually, all illegal. |
Let's assume that you are serious. Why shouldn't criminals have their access to guns cut off? Criminals do not have access to guns legally, as only the guards are legally allowed guns in prison. And, as far as I know, in the United States of America, there is no gun problem in prison. Criminals have NO legal source for guns, so what is there to change? Or do you presume to know who is a criminal and loose on the streets? If you know of these criminals, know who they are, know where they are, then I suggest you tell the law. I am certain they would be interested in your ability to know who all the criminals are. Or is is that you know who "is GOING to" commit crimes in future. Do you speak of folks who are "going to be" criminals at some point in the future. If you know who these folks are, let us know so we can ban them from having guns? Again, if you know who these people are, then write the list out and we will specify ban them. But until we know who "the criminals are" it makes no sense to disarm everyone because some "might" do something illegal in the future, maybe. Otherwise, if they are "good" enough to be fee on the streets and living next door to me, how can you call them criminals. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ... (Page 1 of 2)
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.