Gun control laws shouldn’t be based on emotional appeal, but on logic, common sense and the facts

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.



  1. 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.

  2. 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.”

  3. 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



  4. Denny Wallace

    “…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?

  5. Denny Wallace

    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!

  6. Denny Wallace

    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

  7. Glad we could help. Leave the TV off and you will be fine.

  8. “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.

  9. So the windbag gave up, what a relief. He sure love the “sound” of his own voice.

  10. Wilson and SNuss,

    Great quotes from last night regarding the deranged poster. His argument had more holes than Swiss cheese.

  11. 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?

  12. The Three-Fifths Compromise did not legalize slavery. It was how the slave population was counted, as pertains to Congressional representation.

  13. 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

  14. 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,”


  15. 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.

  16. Remember, Obama is (supposedly) a Constitutional scholar. That college should offer him a refund.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *