OT: Congressional Action
The Senate bill regarding guns that MAY or MAY not be voted on is too, too lax IMHO. It needs to be far more restrictive. And besides, it is highly unlikely to be passed in the House.
IMO the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and very, very restrictive gun control and regulation needs to be passed into Law. Unlikely to ever happen in the near future, BUT that is my recently hardened POV, based on the incidents in recent years & the EVERYDAY violence occurring!
Who is First???!!!
P.S.
[Sarcasm] - Time to send out the Black Helicopters!
IMO the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and very, very restrictive gun control and regulation needs to be passed into Law. Unlikely to ever happen in the near future, BUT that is my recently hardened POV, based on the incidents in recent years & the EVERYDAY violence occurring!
Who is First???!!!
P.S.
[Sarcasm] - Time to send out the Black Helicopters!
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
34 comments
We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have. Blah-blah-blah. The only solution is mandatory carry. all the time. Wait, then the bad guys will just have bigger guns. Damn, I didn't think about that. Okay, everybody should be required to carry two guns at all times. There that ought to do it. Wait, er.
The second paragraph is possibly even more ridiculous. You take the wackiest ideas and then use them out of context.
I think one other thing that seriously ought to be considered is the repeal of most drug laws. It seems like most crime is a byproduct of the illegal drug business and if you legalize all drugs, my guess is a lot of the crime goes away.
And from looking at his incredibly anal profile page, he also gives us star trek fans a bad name. Tsk tsk.
Alucard, you want em? Molon labe.
Let's suppose the shit really did hit the fan - armed rebellion against an out of control, non-constitution respecting government was necessary, or someone went on a nutso rampage at the hospital where alutard works as a male nurse and he has to defend the place with a gun. Well as much as a hero as alutard wants us to think he is, he would probably not be up to the task in either case. Would probably just wet his pants instead.
So rather than think of himself in such a situation knowing he couldn't live up to the situation he wants to imagine a world where he could never have a gun in the first place and, hence, who never have to be shown to be the extreme pussy that he is.
###
at about 7:45 this morning on the way back from the roxbury ymca after my morning workout, three bullets rang out from an apartment across the street from where i was walking. two hit the window of the car next to me, and one rickashayed off a tree in front of me.
i am fine. unscathed. but of course, a little shaken up. at the sound of the bullets i hit the ground and ducked behind a trash can. i counted to 100 after the shooting stopped and then ran three blocks home. i heard police cars arriving in the distance as i was running.
now.....back to work.
RG
I thought Obama and Pelosi already shredded the constitution. Confiscating everyone's guns is probably just a technical detail as far as they are concerned. I think they got surprised at the level of resistance that the peasants are putting up not realizing we must now pay homage to a king and queen. We can't be true slaves and have our land, property, and retirement savings confiscated until they disarm us first unless they want a big fight. However I think they are working on a work around plan to confiscate our life savings by thinking about restricting the money to US bonds. That way we lose control and won't have any money for guns and bullets. I'm going to be ready to march if they try to confiscate my life savings. I guess that might not be needed if they simply spend so much, our money becomes worthless. Most seem willing to let that happen.
I'm more worried that some idiot POTUS figures out how to circumvent the law making process.
He said if I'd buy a real good pistol, we could go to the big city and do some drive-by shooting at vacant houses in the poor part of town. That sounds like what guns SHOULD be used for.
Admittedly I do not know for sure since I've never asked or heard him explain. Hell, there's an idea, why don't we ask him to give us a rationale for why he believes what e believes?
Add to that, not all Marines will attack their own kind - especially when the gang members in their own ranks start acting up. It's gonna be a messy messy war if it ever gets to that point.
Assuming the desired result is improved public and personal safety...
Why would a person who is willing to violate the laws against assault and murder be UNwilling to violate any laws against gun ownership/possession/use?
It would seem the only way to achieve the desired result of a world without gun violence would be to un-invent the gun. But that cannot happen.
@jabthehut: Its three *quarters*, not three *fifths*, of the States.
Seriously dude, I don't support radical gun restrictions but your logic is not exactly Vulcan in nature. Were you high when you wrote that?
How to understand the need for some laws, but not all laws? How to explain the principles of limited government to one who might see any curtailment of government authority as "anarchy?" Difficult challenge you've posed.
I suggest the necessary and just laws are those that protect personal security and property rights. So laws against assault and murder are just and to be enforced by a government without any fear of trampling liberty; however, laws against gun ownership would not protect personal security nor property rights (opposite on both, in fact).
The reason for my "logic question" was not to suggest anarchy, of course. The reason was to illustrate that all the gun restrictions the government might impose would never have the effect of preventing gun violence. Laws against murder, enforced with severe penalty, do have some such effect, though obviously limited.