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.
The use of violence to enforce commercial transactions and business decisions is typical of an illegal market such as existed during the prohibition of alcohol. If we legalized the trading in all drugs the businessmen involved would use lawyers to argue their differences in court instead of using guns on the street. That would be much safer for everyone but really annoy the drug financiers getting rich off this tradgey.
The source you have is out to demonize people that tell the truth like Napolitano...how would a real judge like him that knows the constitution be lying about what is constitutional?...oh wait unless it is Obama of coarse ....he taught the constitution but he lies so go figure, but Napolitano is a truthful dude...if you can actually find an interview that is from an un-biased source where he decieved someone then post it
Judge Napolitano is NOT what you would define as a "truthful dude"...he's just a Faux News commentator giving his RW, Ailes okayed, opinion..punctuated by lies.
He's not independent in any way shape or form..
He's nothing but a tool...
You probably think Beck and BillO are truthful dudes too...lol
So we need to all be armed with AK-47's since a P38 or Beretta wouldn't be of much help.
(and in a drive by the AK wouldn't be any help either.....)
Gun control works.
This county does not have gun control.
Coke, meth etc. are illegal countrywide and are yet widely available.
So, let me see your plan. Make guns illegal for everyone, that way the 2% that use them to kill rivals and protect their illegal drug etc. trade will get rid of their guns or not be able to get more because they are *illegal*.
Oh well, thankfully we have the US senate to protect us from this kind of stupidity.
Judge Napolitano is NOT what you would define as a "truthful dude"...he's just a Faux News commentator giving his RW, Ailes okayed, opinion..punctuated by lies.
He's not independent in any way shape or form..
He's nothing but a tool...
You probably think Beck and BillO are truthful dudes too...lol
It doesn't work until all the rules are the same.
You can't have gun control in one city and not in surrounding areas.
It won't work. (and it's doesn't)
AK-47's should not be on the street, period.
My guns (and most peoples) would not be of any use vs them.
The first part of the above statement seems to be made under the false assumption that criminals actually give a rat's backside about gun laws. Outlaw gun in this country (unConstitutional) and the criminals will still have them. Look at the failure of the gun ban in England.
The second part of the statement re:AK-47s might be contested by those Asian shop owners in LA during the Rodney King riots who were able to successfully defend their lives and their property from the violent rioters.
I will agree that if one has a firearm and has not trained with it it will be of no use against a criminal posing a lethal treat to you and yours. I suggest plannine get some training from a well qualified instructor.
Require registration. Given that it could be all online, you're fine just carrying. If you're carrying an unregistered gun, it gets confiscated and you spend a few months in jail minimum.
Why? Canada has spend upwards of a billion dollars on their registration and it hasn't help in solving a crime. Maryland has a ballistic database of every gun in the state which has cost tens of millions of dollars. As of last year it had solved 1 gun crime. 1. That's it. If that money had been spent to put more cops on the street, it would have prevented much, much more crime.
Registration is nothing but a 'feel good' solution. There is no practical reason to have it.
The use of violence to enforce commercial transactions and business decisions is typical of an illegal market such as existed during the prohibition of alcohol. If we legalized the trading in all drugs the businessmen involved would use lawyers to argue their differences in court instead of using guns on the street. That would be much safer for everyone but really annoy the drug financiers getting rich off this tradgey.
I agree to some extent.
However, let's take the next logical step. You have gangs and other criminals making billions and billions off drugs and now that source or revenue dries up. Will they go get jobs paying $12 an hour loading trucks, go back to school to get their engineering degree or just transition to some other criminal enterprise?
Ironically, you might see a rash of robberies, kidnappings etc. and an INCREASE in gun deaths. (law of unintended consequences).
As it stands, many gun deaths are gangs killing gangs.
Agreed, crack down on vendors and suppliers. Require registration. Given that it could be all online, you're fine just carrying. If you're carrying an unregistered gun, it gets confiscated and you spend a few months in jail minimum.
Personally I think you should also be able to have some accuracy with the gun to be able to own it. If you can't hit a target, you shouldn't get to have one, buy a taser instead.
"Gun registration" has led to government confiscation of firearms in every country it has been used. It is actually illegal for our federal government to require firearms registration, as it should be.
While it may beyour opinion that accuracy should be a requirement to own a firearm you would be wrong. Predators pick out those who are most weak and vulnerable. Among these are women, the physically handicapped/disabled, and the elderly.
Many of these individuals would not, on any give day, be able to pass a qualification course. For that matter, many LE cannot pass their yearly qual. course without significant practice, many in this country fail and lose their jobs as a result.
Even the weakest among us have a basic human right of self defense. Are you suggesting that these people who might not pass an "accuracy test" have no right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves in their own homes? Would you take that away from them?
The comment about purchasing a Taser instead is flat out ignorant on so many levels and shows no understanding about the Taser as a self-defense tool. They are not an alternative to meeting a lethal threat with equal force.
Anybody here ever shot an AK or been shot at by one? The gun is not all that easy to control on full auto but sounds way cool. My own preference is a a WW2 submachine gun (grease gun) in .45 ACP. This is easy to control and as reliable as a stone ax. Besides if you want to do any real damage in a drive - by use grenades or a semi auto 12 gauge shotgun.
Yeah, auto-12 is not good to be on the receiving end of.
There is a display at the WW1 museum (best in world) in Kansas City of a trench shotgun and a quote from a german general about how it was "unfair".
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.
(law of unintended consequences).
