*** laws : what would you accept ?

[Johan]

With the recent events, guns are, once more, in the middle of a controversy.
Some are calling for a total ban of all guns.
Some are calling for nothing to be be changed

Both sides are going too far. But in the middle of these 2 extremes, there are some measures that could be taken to maintain US honest, responsible citizens to own and carry legal guns and make sure these legal guns won't fall in the hands of people who don't derserve them and would be a threat to society if they could have guns in their hands.

Criminals use ******* guns but mass ********* such as the Aurora shooter or the Newton shooter used legal guns, guns they've bought legaly or guns owned by some of their relatives.

 

[knight99]

I don't see how any of this could really help. Someone could be perfectly fine when they buy a *** and then one day they could snap.you can't test for that kind of thing, but you also can't punish regular people who want to buy guns.I say leave the **** how it is and move on.

 

[xfire]

How do you retroactively implement these type of *** laws? Everyone's heard the cliche, "you can take my *** when you pry it from my cold dead fingers". There's probably half a billion guns in the United States, if not more. Good luck corralling a herd of cats.

 

[Dman25]

I understand the need for licensed guns and such, but why the need for overkill weapons? When the 2nd Amendment was instituted there weren't anything like assault weapons around. There will be renewed proposals for another AWB in Congress, and I'm all for it this time.

 

[itcouldbeme]

The discussion should be about mental illness, not firearms...

 

[Rey C.]

I fully respect those who want to do something. I really do. But I want to point one thing out: there already are mandatory background and criminal records checks when purchasing firearms from licensed dealers everywhere in the United States. There already are legal prohibitions against felons, the mentally/emotionally disabled, people with dishonorable discharges from the military and those convicted of certain domestic ******** crimes from owning or purchasing firearms in the United States. And as Johan pointed out, as far as we know, all of the guns in the possession of the Newtown shooter were legally owned - but not by him.... they belonged to his ******. So let's say that his ****** had fulfilled all of these proposals... I'm not sure what would be different, at least in this case.

To Dman's point, with all due respect, I ask what constitutes an "assault weapon"? The last time we had this law, it basically came down to carbines and rifles (and some shotguns) with threaded barrels, folding stocks, bayonet lugs and other (purely) cosmetic features. The only point I'm getting at as I ask that is, *** makers were able to modify these firearms, removing the "offensive" features, and then called them "sporters". You could still legally purchase an AK or AR variant - they just looked "kinder & gentler".

Like I said, I fully respect those who want to do something. I want people to understand that. But if that something is just a restatement of laws that are already on the books, or a new old law, which is purely superficial in nature, and just makes certain firearms look not so evil, it becomes an ineffective or impractical (laws have to be enforced to work, right?) effort. What to do? I do not know. I would start with a complete overhaul of the mental health system in the United States. And I would link that to a revamp of the FBI database and the way that it and the judicial records system talk to each other.

IMO, getting guns out of the hands of those who are already prohibited from owning or possessing firearms tops the list of things to do. We should be able to work together to get guns out of the hands of convicted violent criminals and those with court recognized mental illnesses. That's what I would like to see. And I believe this would have a meaningful result. Superficial measures will have superficial results.

 

[bobjustbob]

I don't see anything wrong with any of those proposals. It's not like any of them are ways to take guns out of the hands of citizens. They are just ways to promote responsible *** ownership. If somehow one of my guns was responsible for a crime I would be crushed.

 

[Rattrap]

What to do? I do not know. I would start with a complete overhaul of the mental health system in the United States. And I would link that to a revamp of the FBI database and the way that it and the judicial records system talk to each other.

This, times whatever I'm appropriately allowed to times it by.

Of course, such an overhaul has to naturally be tied to an overhaul of the health care system in general, and that hasn't been so terribly successful yet.

 

[Johan]

How do you retroactively implement these type of *** laws? Everyone's heard the cliche, "you can take my *** when you pry it from my cold dead fingers". There's probably half a billion guns in the United States, if not more. Good luck corralling a herd of cats.

It's impossible? The law wouldn't be retro-active. I know there already many guns but, at least it would prevent any further buying from crazy people.
Keep in mind that the Aurora shooter bought his guns and ammos only a few weeks before...
At least, these laws would have prevented this shooting.

 

[xfire]

It's impossible? The law wouldn't be retro-active. I know there already many guns but, at least it would prevent any further buying from crazy people.
Keep in mind that the Aurora shooter bought his guns and ammos only a few weeks before...
At least, these laws would have prevented this shooting.

I didn't say it would be impossible. My analogy was that it would be difficult, and it would be. Does that mean it's not worth trying? No, but you can't reasonably expect laws to stop criminals. That ****** is a felony didn't stop the shooter.

 

[Rey C.]

It's impossible? The law wouldn't be retro-active. I know there already many guns but, at least it would prevent any further buying from crazy people.
Keep in mind that the Aurora shooter bought his guns and ammos only a few weeks before...
At least, these laws would have prevented this shooting.

I'm not overly familiar with the circumstances of the Aurora shooting, Johan. Was he at some point judged by a court or a doctor as being mentally ill or disabled? Did he have a criminal background? There is already a law which deals with that. Was this law not enforced? Or are you saying that that law needs to be revised to better capture mentally ill people? If so, then I would fully agree with you on that. Sorry, but I just don't know much about this guy's background or what law would/should have applied.

But remember, a law *may* make it more difficult for a criminal or mentally ill person to secure a firearm. But laws do not and cannot prevent shootings or killings. If you went to Brighton Beach (in New York) and had the right accent and knew the right people, you could buy a fully automatic Uzi by this weekend if you had the cash. Yet, those weapons are more regulated than any other. And any fully automatic weapon produced after 1986 is completely ******* in the U.S. unless you are in the military or ***************. But the Russian/Israeli mob can hook you up with a brand spanking new one. Or, they'll **** you, dump your body in the river and take your money. I didn't say the purchase was without risk.

 

[Will E Worm]

No law will work. Unconstitutional laws only hurt well meaning people. Not criminals.


Also, we have the right to own weapons. That right shall not be infringed.

The discussion should be about mental illness, not firearms...

The liberals had them closed in the 70's.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

The discussion should be about mental illness, not firearms...

This, and a couple of other things. Quit plea bargaining down violent offenders. If you have video evidence of a scumbag robbing a store, and that video clearly shows him **** the clerk, quit clogging our prisons, and courts. One appeal, if it fails, put a round in his head, and move on. No one questions the flood of ******* guns coming into this country from the south, to arm the gangs that run rampant. Deport them, and if they come back.....bullet to the head, we're done with that scumbag. It'll take a while, but one by one, we'll remove the disease.

The law plainly states, if you have committed a crime with a ***, you are not allowed to own one, if you're caught breaking that law. Life in prison. You're not supposed to have a *** if you have a mental illness. This one is harder, because it's a broad range to judge, but there is a need to fix this...but I would not agree that psych testing every *** owner is acceptable.

Registration is not acceptable. That's how Hitler got the job done. Back round checks are currently mandatory. Banning ANY ***, is not acceptable in any way shape or form, nor is magazine capacity.

The problem isn't guns, or their availability to law abiding people, it's the criminals, and how they are punished, and how they get their weapons. That's what needs to get fixed.

Many remember the failed "Fast & Furious" scheme....I doubt we'll every really know, but my opinion isn't that it was a failed attempt to catch criminals, but our government getting caught supplying the cartel THEY stand behind, to keep the ***** flowing, so they can justify billions on a shame war on *****. I truly believe that obama claimed executive privilege for himself, and his pions, because he knew it would come out, and he knows someone will crumble under the pressure, and spill the beans about them handing guns to the criminals.

You notice this **** never happens in states like Texas, where everyone has a ***....it happens in places with stricter *** laws, and places where carrying concealed is prohibited.

 

[Johan]

The discussion should be about mental illness, not firearms...

A mental unarmed is not dangerous. A mental with a *** is dangerous...

The problem isn't guns, or their availability to law abiding people, it's the criminals, and how they are punished, and how they get their weapons. That's what needs to get fixed.

It is a little more complicated than that. The world id not divided with criminals on one side and honest citizens on the other side. Criminals were law abiding people before their 1st crime....

You notice this **** never happens in states like Texas, where everyone has a ***....it happens in places with stricter *** laws, and places where carrying concealed is prohibited.

So, mandatory guns for everyone ?
Guns for teachers, in cas someone comes inthe school to shoot everyone ?
And what if a teacher snaps while he's in class ? Should student come to school with guns, in case the teacher snap and starts ******* the whole class ?

 

[itcouldbeme]

A mental unarmed is not dangerous. A mental with a *** is dangerous...

The methodology is trivial...

 

[Mr. Daystar]

A mental unarmed is not dangerous. A mental with a *** is dangerous...

It is a little more complicated than that. The world id not divided with criminals on one side and honest citizens on the other side. Criminals were law abiding people before their 1st crime....


So, mandatory guns for everyone ?
Guns for teachers, in cas someone comes inthe school to shoot everyone ?
And what if a teacher snaps while he's in class ? Should student come to school with guns, in case the teacher snap and starts ******* the whole class ?

I guess you should tell that to the wife of the convenient store owner, that was stabbed to death, by a mentally ill man that resided where my wife used to work.

It's not complicated....first offense, you're done.

Yes, mandatory to pack heat...I like that, and teachers yes, students no.

People freaked about the shooter at W.Virginia Tech....the school dropped the ball, never warned the students, put the campus on lock down to late, and just days before denied the right of the qualified, and law abiding to carry concealed. The administrators are accessories to ****** in my eyes, and if I was a ****** member, I would sue, and demand criminal prosecution.

 

[Johan]

Yes, mandatory to pack heat...I like that, and teachers yes, students no.

Then, what if the teacher snaps, in class, and starts shooting the **** ? How long will it take before another teacher hear him and come to shoot him ? How many **** could he **** before someone stops him ?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Then, what if the teacher snaps, in class, and starts shooting the **** ? How long will it take before another teacher hear him and come to shoot him ? How many **** could he **** before someone stops him ?

You use the phrase "what if" an awful lot. What if, they pass the strictest *** laws EVER....and criminals still **** thousands of people with guns? What if the people that don't need guns, because MY TAX DOLLARS pay the secret service agents that protect them, no longer have protection. It's easy for these idiots to scream about what we "Need", when they have the best security in the world. Lets see obamas **** get on a school buss alone, and go to a public school. Lets see his silly square ass drive his own standard car to the store for a pack of smokes. These fucking people scream loud, then hide behind a fairy tail life....they're all spineless little pussy's....let's see these motherfuckers face the people they've screwed over time, and time again, without the high priced, heavily armed back up they have at their finger tips.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

 

[Shifty]

^^ Mr. Spray and Pray.