Why Gun Control Laws Are Meaningless Government Ploys

[bobevenson]

You can compare keeping guns out of the hands of people you don't want to have them to keeping drugs out of the hands of people you don't want to have them. What has the billions and billions of dollars spent on the so-called drug problem accomplished?

[A_Seagull]

Maybe they should make a law that people with guns can only shoot at other people with guns. Shooting at anyone else would be a capital offense.

[bobevenson]

Maybe they should make a law that people with guns can only shoot at other people with guns. Shooting at anyone else would be a capital offense.

That would fit nicely with stupid gun control ploys.

[BigWhit]

I'll have you know that the war on drugs has provided a subtle but official channel for racism to operate. Without it racism may well have been curbed by now and who in their right mind would want blacks thought of as anything but criminals and nit-wits?

the importance of history cannot be overstated. It amazes me how people can look at the prohibition of alcohol and how well that went and still think banning something is just magically going to solve the problem whether it be drugs, guns, abortions, or anything else you can think of.

[Scott Mayers]

Maybe they should make a law that people with guns can only shoot at other people with guns. Shooting at anyone else would be a capital offense.

This actually IS often a law in act in many places. You may, for instance, be potentially only allowed equal or lesser forces to resist a trespasser. I learned of a case in high school law class that told of a grandmother who shot her grandson who had lost his keys and opted to come in through a window at night in likely hopes not to wake her. She shot him with a shotgun and was charged for it for just this reason. Technically, in such a law, though, it means that if one even comes in with intent to rob or do harm, you are not allowed to say, use a gun, if the perp is at best using only his/her fists.

[Scott Mayers]

You can compare keeping guns out of the hands of people you don't want to have them to keeping drugs out of the hands of people you don't want to have them. What has the billions and billions of dollars spent on the so-called drug problem accomplished?

This is the problem, Bob: If you give the right of one set of people to have guns, it imposes the necessity of others to have them who prefer NOT to have them but are concerned of those who DO. In fact, the NRA itself actually desires preserving their own 'rights' based on their own fears of official authority to have this 'right'. It is feared that the authorities would resort to always become abusive if empowered to do so without some alternative force to keep them in check. As such, the gun owner is thinking their purpose to have gun ownership rights is about the very same fear that the non-gun-owner feels FORCED to comply with if only to prevent being abused in turn by the gun-totting sub-populations. At least, the government has the excuse to wield power when granted by the demos (the people).

But this only keeps escalating in increased abuses by one or another when no limits are set. The NRA opposes ANY LAWS by its most powerful proponents. As such, even the NRA is worthy of being concerned about with being likely to become more abusive than any potential government as these subset of society are NOT even elected by the demos (the free people everywhere). It only serves particular groups and, especially, the fear mongering, paranoid, or deluded peoples who actually create the very risk to democracy.

I can understand your position as I have no fantasy of any actual moral virtues or vices with respect to humanity. But if you are to be honest, your belief intrinsically means that you do NOT support democracy as an ideal even contrary to your likely denial of this fact. This is because, if you had to back your position, you wouldn't simply limit any laws that limit gun ownership, but rather forcefully ASSURE that each and every person MUST have a gun. All that occurs is lip-service to this logic but they don't actually want this -- they actually only support the right for themselves to have guns with a preferential bias that others do not. So they count on the very fact that others can't even afford such weapons, choose to voluntarily NOT own, or to selectively LIMIT some sets of population in direct risk to other gun-owners of their clans. In other words, the NRA supporters are hypocritical as they represent the very KIND of threats that the 14th Amendment was designed to prevent. It is the mentality of the aggressive militant people desiring absolute power through FORCE who support NRA-style beliefs who ARE the types of people who if in power WILL be the creators of government abuses of such powers. They just perceive that their equivalent 'evil' counterparts exist in government who are the motivating factors of gun controls! So it is a self-reflection of what they fear they would do if in power: have the guns while removing them from their hated opponents.

[Obvious Leo]

Maybe they should make a law that people with guns can only shoot at other people with guns. Shooting at anyone else would be a capital offense.

This strikes me as a very practical suggestion but why not take it one step further? Make it compulsory that all persons with a gun be required to shoot at another person with a gun at least once a week. The gun problem should sort itself out in no time.

[Walker]

Maybe they should make a law that people with guns can only shoot at other people with guns. Shooting at anyone else would be a capital offense.

This strikes me as a very practical suggestion but why not take it one step further? Make it compulsory that all persons with a gun be required to shoot at another person with a gun at least once a week. The gun problem should sort itself out in no time.

Seems pretty damn simple. Appoint a blue ribbon panel to robustly study the situation, then make an executive order making it illegal to not follow the laws.

Look, you have to understand, The Constitutional Scholar has the answers. Shouldn’t folks just listen, do as told, and get on with enjoyment of life?

[bobevenson]

You can compare keeping guns out of the hands of people you don't want to have them to keeping drugs out of the hands of people you don't want to have them. What has the billions and billions of dollars spent on the so-called drug problem accomplished?

This is the problem, Bob: If you give the right of one set of people to have guns, it imposes the necessity of others to have them who prefer NOT to have them but are concerned of those who DO.

There should not be gun restrictions on ownership unless misused, and no background checks of any kind on gun purchases. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide a last-ditch defense of the people against a tyrannical government.

[Obvious Leo]

It fascinates me that the Department of Homeland Security in the US has what they call a "terrorist watch list". I have no idea how one gets to meet the criteria required to be on this list but once you're on it you will no longer be permitted by law to board a commercial aircraft. However you cannot be prevented from buying a firearm. Is that fucked up or what?

[bobevenson]

That's why the AEP is needed, to take over a State, and secede from the Union!

[Obvious Leo]

That's why the AEP is needed, to take over a State, and secede from the Union!

Good idea, Bob. Take one that's fuck-all use for anything else, like New Mexico for instance, and make everybody with a gun move there. With any luck they'll all kill each other soon enough and their decomposing cadavers will vastly improve the soil quality for the next wave of residents.

[bobevenson]

That's why the AEP is needed, to take over a State, and secede from the Union!

Good idea, Bob. Take one that's fuck-all use for anything else, like New Mexico for instance, and make everybody with a gun move there. With any luck they'll all kill each other soon enough and their decomposing cadavers will vastly improve the soil quality for the next wave of residents.

Only a simpleton like you would come up with New Mexico on the spur of the moment. No, the AEP will conduct a university study to determine the most propitious State to begin operations. For your political edification, a couple of important factors would be historically low voter turnout and an even split between Democrats and Republicans.

[Obvious Leo]

Only a simpleton like you would come up with New Mexico on the spur of the moment.

It was only a bloody suggestion, Bob. It's not the only state in the union which is good for fuck-all. Ohio would probably do.

[Arising_uk]

Which comedian was it who made the suggestion that bullets should be made extremely expensive as that'd do the trick.