Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is true -- lots of laws, but if they aren't effective do we stop trying to find ones that may be effective.
I'm not advocating for any particular gun control law but the argument we have too many laws being used to not seek out ones that may be effective doesn't seem right to me.
(This applies not just to gun control measures. We have an exhaustive list of environmental protection laws...too many but most are not really that effective).
You can make 15 of the harshest laws possible, and it still won't stop this.
Why?
Because those who do these things don't. care. what the law says. You're not hindering criminals.
Murder is illegal. Do we still have murders?
Assault is illegal. Do we still have assaults?
Drunk driving is illegal. Do we still have drunk driving?
Leaving your kid in the car on a hot day is illegal. Do we still have kids left in hot cars?
If the issue is second amendment self-defense, then why don’t we invent a smart gun for civilians that uses GPS and camera capabilities to only fire bullets when the trigger is pulled and the aim is on someone who is also in possession of a gun?
So this would be a true self-defense weapon where the gun specifically will fire only on aggressors and automatically not allow any firings on anyone else. This could be a gun for the home. It could also have the capability to fire as normal but only for a separate cartridge where the bullets are non-fatal such as bibi gun bullets which would be a tool for scaring perpetrators and causing minor injury without causing death.
What the hell are you even talking about? the 2nd amendment is not just about self defense. GPS and cameras? BB's for bullets? Get out of here.
...
So this would be a true self-defense weapon where the gun specifically will fire only on aggressors and automatically not allow any firings on anyone else. This could be a gun for the home. It could also have the capability to fire as normal but only for a separate cartridge where the bullets are non-fatal such as bibi gun bullets which would be a tool for scaring perpetrators and causing minor injury without causing death.
Not pragmatic by any means what-so-ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
Well, for one thing, no coverage out here. For another, one would really be up the creek in an EMP situation. For a third, it puts control of one's guns in the hands of the government.
Fourth, feral hogs don't carry guns!
Fifth, those in my circles are trained to shoot if the guy is 15 yards away and has a knife.....because at that range, he can do a lot of damage with that knife.
Sixth, what if he has brought friends.....at 5 rounds, SHOOTSHOOT look SHOOT is going to be exhausted real quick.
7th, of course, the 2nd amendment is self defence against the government......and that seems like a pretty puny way to do it.
8th would be the Cost of such a device (not to mention 'it would be worthless and no one would buy it').
1. A bat will not go through the wall and kill a neighbor. I have a friend whose daughter was killed by her husband when he was cleaning his pistol and forgot there was a round in the chamber.
The thing to consider there is that your friend's husband is a moron who should be in jail for Felony Stupidity With A Firearm. I have handled hundreds of firearms in my life, and I knew EVERY...SINGLE...TIME the firing/carry condition of every single one.
First rule - all weapons are loaded until you prove they are not. Your friend's galactically ignorant husband ignored the first rule and should be spending the remainder of his life in a prison cell pondering rules he should never forget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault
2. McDonald v. IL turned on home self-defense with a pistol but a coach gun may be better and was already legal. SCOTUS and the city's lawyers not being that familiar with guns, they did not bring that fact up. A shotgun is much safer but harder to bring to bear on a target indoors.
Says someone who clearly hasn't done tactical training with firearms. You don't "bring weapons to bear" in legit tactical scenarios. You have them at the ready and proceed using a controlled and AIMED manner, using trigger discipline as the safety measure. I have done several different versions of indoor tactical training with shotguns (using non-lethal rubber ammo), and almost the entire time, I was walking around with the weapon up, staring down the barrel to the bead, sweeping my aim and keeping my finger off the trigger until firing time.
The closest most people get to what proper defensive firearm tactics looks like is a John Wick movie (and BZ to Keanu, who is a legit tactical marksman). Even in tight spaces, shotguns are a fine quality tactical choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault
3. A dog is a great early-warning system. Can you imagine what the result is if you shoot someone in your house? I've shot deer and the result is not pretty.
A dog is indeed a fantastic early warning system, and the first option I tell anyone who ever asks me what they should buy for home defense. I don't want a dog, so I go with choice #2-4, a shotgun, a pistol and a rifle.
As far as what the result would be if I shot someone in my house...easy to imagine. A huge legal and physical mess that would be required to be cleaned up, but I'd be alive to do that cleaning. I have perfect moral, logical and spiritual clarity where killing an intruder or anyone trying to harm my family is concerned. I do not look forward to it, desire it or actively seek it out, but if violence is required for the defense of my life or my loved ones, I have zero problem with the theory of dispensing violence to the degree required to ensure safety.
I live in NY State with some of the strictist gun laws in the nation. Back when my husband got his pistol permit in 1978 - NY had a law on the books where anyone caught with an unregistered gun was given a mandatory 1 yr in prison. He asked me today - what ever happened to that so I went to research it. In 2006 the law was changed to say that anyone possessing an unregustered loaded gun may receive a sentence of 3 1/2 yrs. This changed from mandatory to may giving prosecutors and judges leeway on sentencing. A reason given was that if police stopped a car, found a loaded unregistered pistol in the car but of course no one took ownership of it and judges and DAs dcfould choose whether to prosecute or not.
Instead of more laws - enforce what laws we have. Don't give these bleeding heart judges and DAs any power to release these people. Also bring back mental institutions.
People who give other countries as examples don't realize there are still guns on the street. There may not be as many as they don't have countries surrounding them where cartels, smuggles ect can easily get them into the country.
You receive a big fat F on your liberty and freedom report card for this.
1) the very premise of “mandatory” sentences for victimless crimes is a dangerous and extreme authoritarian concept that is antithetical to a free and just society. In truth, we should never allow the state to criminalize a behavior that has harmed no one, because under common law, there must be a harmed party for there to have been a crime committed.
2) The idea that a judge or prosecutor would choose not to prosecute someone for a supposed crime that harmed no one, doesn’t make them “bleeding hearts”. This, after all, is why we have a justice system, with judges and juries and prosecutors, so that actual justice is administered, and the human element is preserved in deciding whether or not to deprive a person of their life or liberty. Anything less than that is unjust.
3) The very fact that this needs to be explained is justification enough to defend the premise of rejecting the concept of victimless crimes, because the possibility, and indeed the likelihood of abuse is too great, whether it be born of ignorance, or malice of intent by those seeking authoritarian powers of control.
To further explain the undesirable and unjust consequences of having such powers allowed to the state, and this has come up many times with regard to certain states and city jurisdictions which embrace draconian laws compared to other states, cities and surrounding areas, a traveler on an interstate highway just passing through could find himself in a circumstance where a behavior that is absolutely lawful in the state where he resides, is a criminal act in violation of the laws of the area he is just driving through.
So, should you be successful in eliminating all of those ‘bleeding hearts” judges and prosecutors, this otherwise innocent passer by who is harming no one, nor has any intent to do so, nor is any threat to inflict harm upon the community, could wind up spending the next 3 1/2 years of his life behind bars, simply for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, incarcerated for the crime of being pulled over by a highway patrol officer who noticed a burned out brake light.
Another example came to mind of the injustice of victimless crimes and mandatory sentences. This was a case in Virginia back in the 1980’s when there were federal mandatory sentencing for drug violations. The case involved a young man, 18 years old, attending his first year of college. This kid had a flawless history, top notch academic record, community volunteer award, and just an all around great kid. As with many of us at that age who were no strangers to smoking a little weed … marijuana laws in certain jurisdictions were more strict and aggressively pursued, compared to other areas. Well, this poor kid found himself at the wrong place at the wrong time, and during a traffic stop, an overzealous cop searched the kid and found a small amount of weed in his possession, and arrested him. And due to pure luck of the draw, the traffic stop occurred in a school zone, which under the federal mandates in place at that time, carried a mandatory 5 year prison sentence for possession of a controlled substance in a school zone.
During the sentencing, the Judge in the case was clearly distraught, and made it known how disturbed he was that he had no choice, and was required under federal law to sentence this kid to 5 years in prison for a tiny bag of marijuana. The judge said it was the most difficult and unjust decision he’d ever been required to make.
Now, all of that could have been avoided if common law principles were strictly observed, which requires a victim for a crime to have been committed. The only real crime in this instance was a crime of injustice victimizing a young man barely achieving the age of an adult consent. And in my opinion, it was state sponsored child abuse, and antithetical to anything remotely connected to justice.
Even in this case, if the system and its participants weren’t so terribly flawed, or the authorities so egregiously blind, this kid wouldn’t have been sent to prison. The prosecutors could have exercised their prosecutorial discretion by dropping the case, and avoiding the injustice that would surely result. But they didn’t. The judge could have dismissed the case, citing some procedural inconsistency, but he didn’t. Instead, they followed a flawed law, and sent a kid to prison that had no business being in prison for possessing a substance which in some states now have dispensaries legally licensed by the state to sell openly and legally.
The moral to the story is simply this … intelligence and wisdom must be applied when considering and crafting laws, with justice being the only legitimate consideration, not political or ideological agendas.
The reason why the 2nd Amendment states “ …. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” wasn’t because the drafters were advocates of gun violence, or wanted to protect the rights of mentally disturbed persons to have access to weapons to commit crimes … they simply possessed the wisdom which understood that any allowances for restricting that right would eventually be abused to the point of rendering the right null and void.
Even with this clear prohibition which clearly states “SHALL NOT” is being abused by tyrants, and defended by idiots who believe that NO really means “yes we can, if we have a good excuse”.
Gun laws only create criminals out of law abiding citizens. These laws have no effect whatsoever on criminals because criminals do not obey laws to begin with.
And you need not possess the superior wisdom of our founding fathers to understand such a simple concept. Just basic common sense is all that is required.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 05-25-2022 at 11:20 AM..
Things to consider:.........
3. A dog is a great early-warning system. Can you imagine what the result is if you shoot someone in your house? I've shot deer and the result is not pretty.
One of my notable traits is my audacity......what would stop me?
If I am defending my life in my house, I will use anything for that purpose. If it means tipping one of my curio cabinets, with all its precious memories, down on someone......you better believe it.
Ideas to stop these mass shootings and gun violence in general in this country:
1. No assault rifles
2. No semi-automatic machine pistols
3. No foldable stocks
4. No body armor
5. No extended magazines
6. No fully automatic weapons
7. Gun owners must be 21
8. All gun owners must be licensed
9. Licensing to require strong background checks for criminal history or a history of violence or mental issues
10. Licensing to require gun safety and use training and gun law training. To be renewed at regular intervals
11. Red flag laws in place nationally
12. Required reporters (educators, law enforcement, legal, mental and physical health professionals, social workers) are by law required to report any kind of criminal activity, suicide ideation, violent threats or actions to federal gun licensing authorities
13. No private gun sales
14. All guns to be registered
15. All guns in a home with any resident without a license requires those guns to be stored with safes, locks
16. No one under 21 can be licensed
17. No one under 21 can possess a gun on their person, even temporarily, without a licensed gun owner present
18. All guns required active gun use insurance
19. All ammunition sales to be recorded and ammunition sales require proof of gun license and insurance
20. Anyone with a gun in public is required to provide proof of gun license and insurance at any time
21. Making any kind of threat with a gun on your person is a felony, no brandishing required
22. No guns within ½ mile of a school or church
23. Require that any theft of guns be immediately reported
24. National voluntary gun buyback program
25. Any gun used in a crime or found to not be properly licensed and insured is to be taken into law enforcement possession and destroyed as soon as possible
26. Anyone found in possession of a gun in public or in their residence without proper license or insurance will be charged with a crime
27. Penis enlargement treatments for all males. Gun sales will decrease, giant truck sales will decrease, motorcycles will get quieter, this board will become tamer. Win win for everybody.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
