You've already asked these questions haven't you? Its not going to be enough to keep me up. Ask something more high powered
What do you think should be done to prevent firearm violence, that would leech confidence from a criminal, but still have a way for home-owners and even poor citizens to protect themselfs.
Did it take you long to think up these questions? I'm not aware of any crime that can be "prevented" by any particular law. That is not the purpose of laws. Laws that "leech confidence from... criminal"? Aren't you asking an awful lot from any law? It appears that you are purposefully setting the bar to an unreasonable level here. Amateurish, really. You're only showing what we have now. Our Constitution allows for what you stated above and no law can change that, so your question is leading and unrealistic. I suggest that you sever the ties to fear and step into the realm of knowledge. Read unbiased literature and turn a blind eye to mindless slogans and myths. Ask for valid proof to support your fears and the knowledge will set you free. (sorry for the hyperbole,... it's late)
1. No its been posted for awhile, took me five minutes. 2.Never said anything about laws, plus its about theory right now. 3.Once again, nothing about laws, just punishments or something that demorilize people. 4.Theory, and people try to change the constitution all the time, but as i said, theory. 5.Are you confused? What fears have i expressed.
Ayuh,... If That's the case,... I guess ALL of the existing Gun Control Laws should be repealed, Immediately... After all,... Every gun control law passed since 1968 has been sold to Us as a crime Prevention law... And, of course, We already know, None of these Preventative laws have ever done what they were said to do.... None of 'em....
Don't mince words. You also never said anything about "theory" either. The fact remains that any substantive action to be taken concerning gun control will require a law. Simple. More avoidance. What sort of "punishment" do you mean that would not require a law? Nonsense. Even theoretical solutions would require laws. Unless that is, you were asking Reiver a science-fiction question related to another dimension perhaps? It takes 2/3's of our Congress to approve it and then 2/3's of our State legislatures to pass a Constitutional Amendment, friend. You obviously have nothing reasonable to talk about here. Well, you seem willing to stall a conversation with Reiver concerning scholarly research until he informs you of his list of gun reforms. Even though one has nothing to do with the other. It would appear to me that you have a fear of gun control, even though we have always had it here.
Then, by YOUR logic, all our laws should be repealed because we can't prove they work. It's an idiotic argument that forgets we are a Nation of laws, we live by the 'Rule of Law', and are bound by a Constitution.
Ayuh,... I'm askin' YOU to defend, 'n define yer idiotic position that laws aren't to prevent actions,... After all,... It's what YOU said, ain't it.... It's been yer side that's used this position for the last 50 years,... Please explain yer peabrained statements.... We're waitin' for YOU to stand behind yer nutty conclusion.... While yer at it,... Explain WHY laws that Don't bring about the expected results shouldn't be repealed,..?? I'm waiting.... friend.......
Don't mince words. You also never said anything about "theory" either. The fact remains that any substantive action to be taken concerning gun control will require a law. Simple. You neglected to answer what sort of "punishment" do you mean that would not require a law? Even theoretical solutions would require laws. Unless that is, you were asking Reiver a science-fiction question related to another dimension perhaps? It takes 2/3's of our Congress to approve it and then 2/3's of our State legislatures to pass a Constitutional Amendment, friend. You obviously have nothing reasonable to talk about here.
Well, Bondo. I must congratulate you on posting more than one trolling sentence here. Good work. Let me answer your rude question. Laws CAN have a preventive characteristic to them, but it is not the sole purpose of them. It is simply to define an acceptable code of conduct for the masses and to allow for punishment to those who go astray. Simple. Look, it was you who argued that "ALL of the existing Gun Control Laws should be repealed, Immediately", because you felt they were not effective. This logic fails because the same could be said of almost any law. Can you show that the law against burglary has lowered burglaries? How about Rape? Jay-walking? Your standard is unreasonable and foolhardy. We do not measure our laws by how we might feel they prevent a particular crime. This is not what our framers intended and notr how our Constitution was written. If you have a problem with this, then petition to change the Constitution.
1.I was hoping reiver would answer that. 2.I wasnt implying laws myself, i just wanted to know what he thought. 3.You just want to argue with me.
Thank you, Silverhair. It takes even MORE votes than I previously said to ratify an Amendment. I appreciate you strengthening my point for me.
To what "well-regulated Militia" did the various mass-killers belong to? Surely, since the existence of such groups is the stated reason for allowing the people "to keep and bear arms," surely gun owners must be required to belong to such organizations. Perhaps belonging to such "militias" might help prevent some of the disasters.
..and another: Yes, it's from a few years ago, but the stats remain close: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls Well, at least for those who trust the FBI like me.
Such nonsense has been rejected outright by the united state supreme court. The militia argument is a dead and discredited argument, no more valid than claiming that the earth is flat.
