Why We Need Gun Restrictions

domer76 said:
Here’s the way it works, bitch.

Dump all the local laws. Federalize them. Every firearm violation becomes a federal crime. You know how those work? No mercy.

Got a gun you shouldn’t have? Federal sentence for you and everyone else involved with you obtaining that weapon. Including any “legitimate” business associated with that weapon.

Product liability. You don’t see tobacco ads anywhere these days do you? Dry up gun ads same way.

Identify and track every gun transaction. Including your sale to crazy Uncle Bill. Fail to do that? Return to those federal violations.
Click to expand...

The question was:

What new restrictions would deter criminals from using a firearm in the commission of a crime?
 
Old Trapper said:
If yu remember the incident, and I am sure you don't, the cops didn't take the time to find out. They killed the kid in less then 30 seconds after arriving on the scene.
Click to expand...

And which happens first"
1 - action
or
2 - reaction

This should help you understand your complaint of: "the cops didn't take the time to find out"!!
 
U9 #184

In one well publicized case, police shot and killed a child with a toy gun.

In a much more recent but similar case police did NOT kill the children with the toy gun. Instead he lectured them.

Police work is not for everyone.

The trigger-happy SOB that finds killing innocent children acceptable, even if s/he has an excuse, should not be wearing a badge. S/he should be working the window at McD's.
 
countryboy said:
I'm through arguing with people who have no idea what they're talking about. You go ahead and kill shoplifters, and see what it gets you.
Click to expand...

Why are you unwilling or unable to answer the question??

So you're supposed to wait, until they either swing it at you or hit you with it??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Why are you unwilling or unable to answer the question??

So you're supposed to wait, until they either swing it at you or hit you with it??
Click to expand...

Oh, so now you want to play silly word games like a lib.

From a legal, and moral standpoint (if you care about such things), your attacker would need to be brandishing the deadly weapon in a threatening manner. So no, you wouldn't need to wait until they swung, or hit you with the deadly weapon. But in this case, that is irrelevant, and does not apply. The shoplifter was trying to escape.

Do you think it's a smart move to incur tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and civil liability, and risk imprisonment, over a hatchet worth a few bucks?
 
Old Trapper said:
Where in the Constitution is this "unenrolled" Militia? The Constitution says "A well regulated Militia", and that would require an enrollment.
Click to expand...

It's not in the Constitution, it's in the US Code.

Old Trapper said:
The Militia ended at the same time the people accepted the permanent standing army we now have. If not for that then cowards like you, Trump, Cheney, Romney, and even Clinton, etc., would have served in some branch of the military.
Click to expand...

It did? You have some sort of law to point to of course that says it's no longer a "thing"?

Old Trapper said:
"In 1814 letter Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”
Click to expand...

So what? As you have pointed out we do have a standing army. Using the reasoning Jefferson and Madison employed in rejecting a standing army that makes militias even more vital than they thought.

Old Trapper said:
If the writers of the had Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and no need for the 2nd Amendment. Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. In the Constitution there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money, and pay for, anything except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
Click to expand...

You left out some stuff from Article 1 section 8...about the militia. As far as I know that has not been amended so your argument is invalid.
 
Ralph said:
Bull Shit! Are we to believe YOUR OPINION as protected by the 1st amendment or the actual authors and those who ratified the 2nd amendment as to why the "right to bear arms" is a protected right of THE PEOPLE?

Sam Adams: "The Constitution should never be construed to prevent the people of the US, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms...…."

Lets see what "FISHER AMES" the framer of the 2nd amendment itself has to say on the subject of stopping the average citizen from having the right to bear arms: "The right of bearing arms.....is to be inherent in the people."

Richard H. Lee (signer of the declaration of Independence): THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING ARMED IS AN ADVANTAGE WHICH THE AMERICAN CITIZEN POSSESS THAT NO OTHER CITIZEN ON EARTH POSSESS...….

Then we have that pesky little thing called the US CONSTITUTION and the countless precedent establishing decisions from SCOTUS that have upheld the original intent and right of the 2nd amendment....EVERY TIME that some leftist challenges it.

But....just like the leftist social fascist HILTER....I can see why the left wants to remove the right to bear arms from THE PEOPLE. Its a most difficult thing to take over a constitutional republic that does not support MOB RULE when THE PEOPLE have the option to protect their lives and property with FORCE.

Personally: I can't wait until the left wing BROWN SHIRTS (Antifa) encounters the wrong individuals and attempts to violently bully him/her....when the victim has a full clip CLOCK (17 rounds) locked and loaded. The result will be up to 17 dead left wing thugs wounded or dying in the streets. Its not a matter of IF this will happened, its only a matter of time BEFORE IT HAPPEENS....and the US RULE OF LAW acquits the shooter. Let the left wing riots begin.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood what I wrote. I said the Second is about military weapons. I did not say the right to own a firearm is dependent upon the Second.
 
countryboy said:
Sooo, you WANT the shopkeep to incur thousands, if not tens of dollars in legal fees, and possibly go to prison. Got it.
Click to expand...

I think he’s going to prison anyway. But I also think thieves need to be punished and personal property needs to be protected. Yes, even $20 hatchets. Sooo, if the shop owner would have used a hatchet to disable but not kill the thief both would be better off, IMO.
 
Old Trapper said:
Where in the Constitution is this "unenrolled" Militia? The Constitution says "A well regulated Militia", and that would require an enrollment.

The Militia ended at the same time the people accepted the permanent standing army we now have. If not for that then cowards like you, Trump, Cheney, Romney, and even Clinton, etc., would have served in some branch of the military.

"In 1814 letter Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

If the writers of the had Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and no need for the 2nd Amendment. Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. In the Constitution there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money, and pay for, anything except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
Click to expand...

No fool like an old fool.
Come back to the question when you know what the fuck you are talking about.
 
leaningright said:
I think he’s going to prison anyway. But I also think thieves need to be punished and personal property needs to be protected. Yes, even $20 hatchets. Sooo, if the shop owner would have used a hatchet to disable but not kill the thief both would be better off, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes, personal property needs to be protected. But not at any cost. Certainly, Financial ruin and prison is not worth it.
 
RB 60 said:
Regulated as in having officers, regulations and yes, many are able bodied and veterans. Not to mention quite proficient with a firearm.
Click to expand...

That doesn't constitute a Militia in spite of your fantasies to the contrary. You really are desperate. Tell me, when do they train?
 
Rune said:
No fool like an old fool.
Come back to the question when you know what the fuck you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Well, the fucking idiot certainly told me. Now if the fool could only explain just what an "unenrolled" Militia is, and where it can be found in the Constitution, or anywhere else for that matter.

Just how you can have a "well regulated" Militia when your have no fucking idea who is going to be there, what "rank" they might have, or what their abilities are, is quite well beyond me.
 
Old Trapper said:
Well, the fucking idiot certainly told me. Now if the fool could only explain just what an "unenrolled" Militia is, and where it can be found in the Constitution, or anywhere else for that matter.

Just how you can have a "well regulated" Militia when your have no fucking idea who is going to be there, what "rank" they might have, or what their abilities are, is quite well beyond me.
Click to expand...

My God you're dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top