Gun control laws shouldn’t be based on the emotional appeal of those directly involved in the Sandy Hook tragedy, or from Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, or the tragic events that occurred in movie theaters or schools, all perpetrated by madmen bent on destruction.
The proposed Congressional gun laws would not have prevented any of those incidents.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S.570) that individual American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment, unconnected to service in a militia - a popular argument used by those on the left.
The Supreme Court also ruled in 2010 in McDonald v Chicago (561 U.S. 3025) that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government - the defense rests, Governor Pat Quinn and Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
It’s difficult enough trying to get our elected officials in Illinois to follow the gun laws, as defined by the courts, regarding “concealed carry.” Why do gun control proponents think criminals will follow the law?
Criminals or madmen will not obey any of the restrictions of the proposed gun control laws. They will not register their guns, they will not buy guns where background checks are required, but they will illegally obtain automatic weapons with the largest magazines of armor piercing ammunition, regardless of laws passed by Congress or the local authorities.
How could anyone disagree with this fact? Criminals do not follow the rule of law. They do not follow the current laws and they will not follow the new proposals. That’s what makes them criminals.
These new gun control laws will only disarm or interfere with those who obey the laws of the land, the ones who pay fines and the ones who must protect themselves from the criminals who roam our streets.
Therefore, the proposed gun control laws can only be directed at the law abiding citizens, and the overriding question has to be – why?
Gun control laws that will actually work would punish those who misuse guns in the commission of a crime. Strictly enforce the laws that are already on the books and make the punishment fit the crime.
Add an extra 10 years to the sentence of anyone misusing a firearm, and if the gun is shot in the commission of a crime, 15 years should be added to the sentence. Let law abiding citizens receive the proper training and defend themselves and their families wherever they go.
Armed security should be provided in gun free zones to protect citizens or children who would not be able to protect themselves in such environments, but must frequent such areas, such as schools, malls or theaters.
Gun control proponents need look no further than Chicago to see the failure of their efforts - over 500 murders last year - going at even a faster clip (pardon the pun) this year, with some of the most strict gun control laws in the country.
“Criminal violence” in not curtailed by gun control laws. ”Gun violence” is a misnomer.
On a related note, see what Chicago police intend to do to legal gun owners:
Chicago’s illustrious Police Chief, Superintendent or SuperNintendo (whichever you wish to call him) got on a local radio station in Chicago and told it like he perceives it.
He said that citizens licensed to carry could be, and indeed predicted they would be shot by Chicago Police Officers.
Read the rest at: http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=4552
Talk about a fascist attitude.
Accept it… Your Opinion is anyone should unrestricted access to Assault Style Weapons… My opinion is they shouldn’t.
What the hell does the Rising debt have to do with Reasonable discussion of restrictions\registration\regualtions of Guns?
More people having Assault style weapons = more of such weapons falling into the hands of Criminals… My Compromise (aka flexibility not rabid paranioa) to suggest everyone keeps all there Guns is to get the Gun Kooks off their grand conspiracy theories… Doesn’t change my OPINION there are no legitimate needs for Assault Style weapons .
No I don’t want the Gov’t telling me what is neccessary in my life but it’s more than obvious Aassault Style Weapons are NOT A NEED they are a want.
Your concerns over the expansion of the Patriot Act has what to do with Reasonable discussion of restrictions\registration\regualtions of Guns?
Because some people share the paranoid grand conspiracy looney tune fear of Gov’t taken my guns… Doesn’t = their is ANY VALIDITY to such nonsene.
Try responding to what I say… not what “you make up”…
“…On a related note…” What Chicago does is related how to “…reasonable discussions of restrictions\registration\regulations of guns…”?
“…He said that citizens licensed to carry could be, and indeed predicted they would be shot by Chicago Police Officers….”
How is this facist attitude?
Isn’t it simple commonsense that those who chose to take the risk of carrying a concealed weapon also assumes the risk their is always the possiblility they could be mistakened as a criminal with a gun drawn, resulting in them being shot by a Police Officer…
Two guys have guns drawn, police observes both… Which one does he shoot?
So a Officers suppose to check gun owners ID before he draws his weapon and responds with Lethal Force…
So yes it simple logic not facisim, that when (not if) Chicago allows concealed carry… Hell yes sooner or later “…citizens licensed to carry…” will be shot by a Chicago Police Officer…
i.e. Police won’t have time to ask for ID’s when they come upon a person with a weapon drawn… sure as hell a “…citizens licensed to carry” filled with the adrenline rush of a violent confrontation won’t respond correctly to the commands of a Police Officer or exhibit Police Office endangering action with an exposed gun… If (or when) they happens… the “citizens licensed to carry” assumes the risk they will be shot… Commonsense not facism
Yet I 100% agree with the right to concealed carry… Just forget the hyperbole about how it will play out in the real-world.
Denny, there are 3 million AR’s in America. Usage in crime and deaths is virtually non-existent. If you want to concentrate on 3 guns used badly out of 3 million, that is your right. But it’s pretty silly.
If you banned everything of danger to one’s life,starting with the biggest threat first, we would all be sitting on a big rock, naked, holding AR-15′s and nothing else around us. It would be the last thing you take, going by the facts.
“…Denny, there are 3 million AR’s in America. Usage in crime and deaths is virtually non-existent…”
You still don’t get it… Because there are 3 Million Assault Style Weapons in the USA doesn’t = it doesn’t matter and certainly it doesn’t = that’s a good thing… My point is… STOP Arms Dealers from selling similar such weapons and it will make the USA a safer place as OVER TIME… such People Killing WMD will shrink in supply… such shrinking will cause fewer of them to be in the hands of bad Guys…
We live in a civilized world… There is most certain “some definition of “Assault Style Weapons” we can agree to that has no purpose being freely brought and sold… even if you want one to blow the hell out stuff on weekends with your gun toting buddies (You can still play with the many other guns that will and should be FREELY made available to All Law-Abiding Citizens)
If you banned everything of danger to one’s life,starting with the biggest threat first, we would all be sitting on a big rock, naked, holding AR-15′s and nothing else around us. It would be the last thing you take, going by the facts.
GOING BY THE FACTS … I don’t advocate BANNING ANYTHING… read what I said REASONABLE DISCUSSIONS of restrictions\registration\regulations of Guns? Where do you get this = BANNING?
FYI… My Personal opinion is (Doesn’t = I’m write and you are wrong) is YES WE SHOULD WORK TOWARDS FINDING A WAY TO BAN ALL ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS AND TO THE MANY GUN ACCESSORIES that have no (reasonable) useful purpose for Hunting\Sportsman\Perssonal Protection…
Stop making stuff up as to what I CLEARLY HAVE SAID… I’m not advocating Banning Guns… I’m advocating a “…Reasonable discussion of restrictions\registration\regualtions of Guns?…”
aka My Opinions about Assault Style Weapons and accessories do not = what I have clearly and consistently advocated… Reasonable discussion of restrictions\registration\regualtions of Guns?
Personal Defense Weapons are involved in a miniscule percentage of gun crimes and murders. So even if there was a need to ban some type of guns, where is the logic in concentrating on a weapon that has the least number of victims of all gun types?
Either it is an irrational over-reaction to the Sandy Hook shootings, fueled by Leftist anti-gun propaganda, or it is seen as the easiest ‘stepping-stone’ to further gun bans by the gun-grabbers of the Liberal Left.
Note Denny’s bi=polar diatribes: “I don’t advocate BANNING ANYTHING”, but in the next paragraph: “YES WE SHOULD WORK TOWARDS FINDING A WAY TO BAN ALL ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS”.
So, which is it?
Denny sez: “Your Opinion is anyone should unrestricted access to Assault Style Weapons”
Oh, yes, Denny, I think they should be passed out, free of charge, like candy at a 4th of July parade. (/sarc-off).
Law-abiding gun buyers should be able to legally buy a Personal Defense Weapon, if they feel it will fit their needs, without being demonized by irrational Leftist gun-grabbers, or the low-information voters who have fallen for the Left’s anti-gun propaganda.
Gotta love it…
Talk about irrational over-reaction aka paranoid delusions of grand conspiracies the Gov’t gone a take my guns = “fueled by Leftist anti-gun propaganda, or it is seen as the easiest ‘stepping-stone’ to further gun bans by the gun-grabbers of the Liberal Left…”
Note Denny’s bi=polar diatribes: “I don’t advocate BANNING ANYTHING”, but in the next paragraph: “YES WE SHOULD WORK TOWARDS FINDING A WAY TO BAN ALL ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS”.
What’s your point SNuts other than AGAIN ignoring what I said “Reasonable discussion of restrictions\registration\regualtions of Guns?…”
Because I’m honest about what I think and say (unlike you) I’m bipolar… They aren’t in conflict.
DEMONIZING… Seriously SNuts you are accussing me of demonizing? That’s funny!
“…Law-abiding gun buyers should be able to legally buy a Personal Defense Weapon…” I 100% AGREE… Question becomes how do we define that Personal Defense Weapon…
I believe SNut types want zero restrictions, anything goes… If they want it they get to buy it…
As for me… I want REASONABLE DISCUSSIONS of restrictions\registration\regulations on what = Personal Defense Weapons… i.e. Doesn’t have to be my definition nor does it have to be SNuts… But most certainly, just as the Founding Fathers ALWAYS INTENDED … resonable civil discussions can determine what makes the most sense in 2013 when it comes to what is OK (and whats not) when it comes to Personal Defense Weapons…
(Now if changes are made to what is allowable and what’s not… entiely different discussions are necessary to determine what is fair and reasonable as far as what to do with “what’s not no longer OK.”
“… if they feel it will fit their needs, without being demonized by irrational Leftist gun-grabbers, or the low-information voters who have fallen for the Left’s anti-gun propaganda….” = anyone who might disagree with the SNuts of the world…
Seriously SNuts… You can’t possible suggest I’m demonizing you… What about the totallu unneccessary hell and fury you dish out just because you think someone MIGHT Disagree with you?
Denny, I understand your opinion and you are entitled to it – that goes without saying. I don’t thik the decision for semi-automatic rifles should be based on a gunowner wanting one and you not thinking there is no need. The debate comes down to, will these new gun contol laws actually stop the criminals from getting one of these rifles or any gun for that matter, if they NEED one for the criminal activity.
Chicago’s gun laws obviously are not stopping 500 murders a year and I doubt “assault rifles” are used in that many of the killings – don’t you think. Is there any proof that these laws are effective? Which makes me wonder why the laws are being touted in the first place. Is this action what gives rise to the conspiracy theories?
At least you are finally toning down your comments and getting off the attack mode.
Decision coming down to “wanting a semi-automatic weapon and my not thinking they need one…”
Again, where on earth do you get this from my comments… Now can you accept the decision should come down to “wanting a semi-automatic weapon and “our collective thinking” do they need one (or are the many other gun options more than sufficient because semi-automatic weapon isn’t reasonably necessary for hunting\sportsman\self-protection)
You can seriously ignore the FACTS of supply and demand does apply to Guns?
“…The debate comes down to, will these new gun contol laws actually stop the criminals from getting one of these rifles…”
Seriously, if tomorrow we stopped allowing Gun Manufacurers to come to the 1,000′s of gun Bazaars conducted around the country where (by my definition) WMD People Killer weapon and devices are brought and sold (mostly) unrestricted…THAT WOULDN’T STOP CRIMINALS FROM GETTING ONE OF THESE RIFLES?
Then over time… because of proven supply-n-demand theory the reduction of the supply of (however you define guns not deserving to be freely brought-n-sold) that such shrinking supply would make it more difficult for criminals to get the guns… and to the price of same would further reduce the demand by criminals?
Then if you are at all open and honest about how these (mostly) unregulated Gun Bazaars that take place 1,000 of times per year, YOU WOULD ADMIT they are Scandalously easy to circumvent reasonable attempts to regulate the sales of lethal weapons and accessories that have no place in a civilized society…
You seriously believe just because Assault Style Weapons aren’t frequently killing and injuring people that means they aren’t in wide-scale use by criminals?
So because of the logic Criminals don’t fallow the law that = we shouldn’t apply reasonable restrictions\regulations and Registerations to what is a consensus achieved as to guns and accessories having little reasonable relationship to Huntings\Sportsman\Self-Protection…?
Simply because SOME PEOPLE FOOLISHLY BELIEVE BIG BAD GOV’T IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS?
Because Chicago Gun Laws don’t make a lick of sense… You can’t possibly equate that to all Gun Laws…
Again… what’s wrong with REASONABLE and CIVIL discussions about restrictions\regulations and Registerations of Guns?
Until you get over (what I believe) the unquestionable insanity of this logic “Is this action what gives rise to the conspiracy theories?”… How can you possibly expect logic and commonsense to enter in to such a hot button topic like Guns?
We just want to buy and keep what we can today. No more, no less. I personally don’t have a use for a grenade launcher or atom bomb. The AR-15 , with its 3 crimes/3,000,000 units doesn’t pose a risk to society. If you want stronger background checks, great. If you want to pull over cars all the time and rid the streets of felons with guns, great. If you want a buy-back programs and pay people to be snitches, great. If you want to execute someone for having a gun at a school or with serial numbers ground off, great! Convict to the fullest extent, hard labor, all the rest. Great!
“…We just want to buy and keep what we can today. No more, no less. …”
And when asked why, the only answer is “Just because I want to.”
Yep, nothing like solid, logical thinking…
Yet Juice, even when I suggest, “Fine… Keep what you got now… But just stop selling NEW Weapons of Mass Destruction… (However we agree to define them… not just what you say or I say… but what WE say)
That only leaves… But what happens to my WMD when I die… Or I want to leave them to my family members…. Ok… Immediate… (just skip aunts, uncle, cousins etc)
Yet Juice based upon your past Hate Mail Commentary you’ll still say hell no…
When asked why… your only answer is JUST BECAUSE!
I don’t agree with the conspiracy theories, Denny. I’m not even against background checks at stores or at gun bazaars. Also I’m against strawmen buying guns and selling them to criminals – anything that make sense and as the remotest chance of working. I’m simply saying in the words of our smartest ever Secretary of State, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Gun control laws don’t work and there are over three hundred million guns already out there!
Telling private business you can’t manufacture these guns, law abiding people that you can’t buy AR-15s because some ass uses it in a crime. I’ll tell you what, Denny as soon as the liberals lengthen the years to be served for using a gun in a crime by 10 to 15 years – sort of like closing the border before any discussion of amnesty – then we can talk about limiting people’s rights to own these guns and maybe you can prove to me, where gun control has worked in the U.S.
Ted, you started out so strong… Then fell off the cliff…
So filling up our Jails with Drug deals + anyone who is stupid enough to commit a crime with a gun (aka ALL PEOPLE DUMB ENOUGH TO COMMIT A CRIME)… that is a logical, reasonable approach?
Seriously… How many more jails will we have to build… How many generations will it take for people to get it… Use a gun go to jail…
So you put young dumbasses in jail for 10-15 years because they use a gun… when they get out come age 30-40… after being raped and brualized daily in Prison… whay hell do you think they will inflict on the community?
Oh yea… don’t forget about the economic costs of $20-$40,000 per year per criminal locked up…
You asked me… Prove to me where gun control has worked in the USA…. HOW ABOUT PROVE TO ME ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE OF LOCKING PEOPLE UP HAS STOPPED ANYTHING?
No I’m not about being easy on criminals… But the utter madnes of more one-size-fits-all logic to solving any problems really angers me… It has never worked, so why do we keep talking about doing it?
So take a step away from the cliff…
“…Telling private business you can’t manufacture these guns(yes defined as no reasonable useful purpose to a civil society), law abiding people that you can’t buy AR-15s (Yes if they are defined as unrelated to reasonable use for Hunting\Sportsman\Self-protection) because some ass uses it in a crime….”
I don’t agree with the conspiracy theories, Denny. (Really doesn’t sound like it based upon the tone\logic of your comments)
I’m not even against background checks at stores or at gun bazaars. (Just reasonable implementation of this is GAME CHANGER…so why not vocally adovate\support it?)
Also I’m against strawmen buying guns and selling them to criminals – anything that make sense and as the remotest chance of working. (Same as above… as much as you damn and demonize how about support WHAT WE REASONABLE CAN DO … versus only hearing about what we can’t or why we can’t )
I’m simply saying in the words of our Secretary of State, What difference, at this point, does it make? Gun control laws don’t work! (Seriously… Just give up… Nothing we can do? Yet you won’t even attempt any of the above things YOU ADMIT COULD BE GOOD IDEA… really
What difference does it make? How about advocate as strongly trying the things you agree with as admantly and as hard as you rail against what we can’t do or doesn’t work?
I don’t know, Denny. Why does a woman need 300 pairs of shoes? Why does X need Y? Maybe JUST BECAUSE. What do you care? None of your business really. What do you have that I would deem escessive? I could care less what you have. None of my business. Can’t sleep at night? Go complain to a cop and find some bad guys.
As I posted in another thread:
“If you don’t want an Personal Defense Weapon, don’t buy one. I don’t care.
If I want one, I’ll buy one. But YOU don’t tell ME what I can, or cannot buy. As long as I use it legally, you (and all your Leftist friends) can go pound sand.”
Speaking of Personal Defense Weapons……..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khEzpR4LiUY&feature=player_embedded#!
BTW, Denny, I found the answer to your question:
“…We just want to buy and keep what we can today. No more, no less. …”
And when asked why, the only answer is “Just because I want to.”
Yep, nothing like solid, logical thinking…
The answer is: “A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”-U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg
Source:http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/md-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/
Translation: IT’S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!
“…exercise his rights…” 100% agree but what does that have to do with reasonable discussions about restrictions\regulations and Registerations of Guns?
Slave ownership was a right until it was taken away…
Voting rights for women was changed
Voting Rights have been changed
So seriously, you think it’s impossible in the 21st century to have a reasonable discussion about restrictions\regulations and Registerations of Guns?
WHAT RIGHTS are being denied?
Speaking of Personal Defense Weapons… I didn’t know anyone was? Nor have I ever heard of such a thing (just because you dream it up)…
Never, ever suggested it was up to me to tell you what you can or can not but… But same for YOU going to pound sand if you think you can deside for everyone else…
Hey Dumbass… It’s a Collective Us… Not me or you to decide… Point is… You still have never, ever responded to WHY CAN’T WE have a reasonable discussion about restrictions\regulations and Registerations of Guns?
What are you so afraid of that you can’t actually respond to what’ve I consistently talked about…
reasonable discussion about restrictions\regulations and Registerations of Guns?
If your argument\reasoning carry’s the day… Unlike you… I’m completely OK with accepting that… Yet in your all knowing, self-rightousness… You apparently think you are better than everyone else and get to make the decisions for everyone…
Sorry not the case… As that great philosopher once said…. Go Pound Sand!
I give everyone… I’ve got way carried away trying to add reason to this discussion.
Wish all the best…
See you around RRStar
Denny Wallace
Glad we could help. Leave the TV off and you will be fine.
“Slave ownership was a right…’.
No, it was permitted under the law at that time. Slavery isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, just like abortion, and “the separation of Church and State”.
Denny sez: “Never, ever suggested it was up to me to tell you what you can or can not but… But same for YOU going to pound sand if you think you can deside for everyone else…”
I never said that I should decide for “everyone else”: Remember this?
“If you don’t want an Personal Defense Weapon, don’t buy one. I don’t care.”
Does that sound like I am forcing anyone to buy a gun? Perhaps in the Leftist Bizzaro world.
So the windbag gave up, what a relief. He sure love the “sound” of his own voice.
Wilson and SNuss,
Great quotes from last night regarding the deranged poster. His argument had more holes than Swiss cheese.
Article 1 of the Constitution refers to free persons and other persons who only count as much as 3/5 of a free person. I wonder who those 3/5 people were since slavery isn’t mentioned in the Constitution? Of course the 13th amendment does state that slavery shall not exist. But maybe some people think that the Constitution only consists of the first 10 amendments. And really, isn’t the 2nd amendment the only important one?
The Three-Fifths Compromise did not legalize slavery. It was how the slave population was counted, as pertains to Congressional representation.
The 3/5 comporomise actually benefit slaves since it reduced the official population count of the southern states. Less population means less House seats. Less House seats means less power
Hey we have Pelosi on our side and and something I didn’t know, she is a constitutional scholar.
“We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves. in their homes and their jobs, whatever, and that they — and the workplace and that they, for recreation and hunting and the rest,”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zYk9gSH92mM
Wilson,
There is a simle explanation for Pelosi’s faux pas – She has to read the Bill of Rights first before she knows what is in it.
Remember, Obama is (supposedly) a Constitutional scholar. That college should offer him a refund.