Gun control - Why punish the law abiding rather than the criminals?

I did not ignore it but it is ignobly ignorable. The article confirms that Chicago has one of the worst gun related crime rates and one of the toughest -- but maybe not the most tough -- gun control laws. Then they tap dance and fart their way across the stage to try to explain how there is really no cause and effect or correlation.

 

Pointing to Chicago's gun laws as proof of anything is useless.

"It's important to remember here that Chicago is very close to two states that have relatively weak gun laws: Wisconsin and Indiana. So while it's easy to pick on Chicago (or any other high-crime city) for its ugly statistics, says one expert, taking bordering states into account weakens this gun-advocacy talking point."
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

 

Why is having enhanced gun control measures for the sake of public safety considered "punishment" for law abiding gun owners?

 

In case you didn't know it, it was Republican hero Reagan who signed the Mulford Act and it was Bush who took away guns in NOLA during Katrina. Yes, it is always fashionable and politically correct in this deluded right wing forum to always blame Democrats for taking away weapons. But it is Republicans (not Democrats) who do so.

As I have said before and will say again - there is ONE solution to government repression of innocents and that is this:







All real patriots agree.

 

Because the ones proposed are usually punishment.

 

Some say tomato, some say tomäto. Some say punishment, some say restriction, some say loss of liberty. Enhanced gun control will have little to no effect on public safety.

 

Then the city of Chicago is ultimately devoid of any legitimate reason to have its own firearm-related restrictions, if they are so easily exploited by neighboring cities and even states not having the exact same firearm-related restrictions in place.

 

Because they are simply not the ones who are threatening public safety through the legal ownership and use of firearms.

There is simply no other way to look at the matter as anything other than punishment, when legal firearm owners are told they must comply with new and costly requirements in order to keep their firearms legal, in response to crimes that they are not committing.

 

Factually incorrect. George Bush did not order the confiscation of firearms in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The order came from the local leadership in the city of New Orleans.

 

We’re all punished for the irresponsible behavior within our ranks in one form or another, why should this be any different?

Think it through...

 

And you base that assumption on what?

 

You are incorrect - the National Guard and the Oklahoma N.G. are not under the mayor's control but were mobilized by Republican Bush. I have previously shown you these forces in action via youtube videos.

 

Why wouldn't more guns solve the problem?

Obviously the (good) people who need guns to stop the violence need more guns.

 

Phobias?

So what should people do if they have a phobia?

 

So how many guns do you have to fight the government? How many people in your militia?

 

It’s a personal choice I suppose. I’ve always been a bit of an acrophobe. There are some things in my work and some hobbies I really enjoy that have forced me to deal with it. I watched an arachnophobe get chased by a tarantula once. She’ll never be the same. But neither of us want to control other people’s lives in any way to assuage our fears.

 

Probably multiple reasons, none really logical.

Some fear guns like others fear snakes; believing then to be evil, malicious, stalking and just waiting to kill someone. Known as " Hoplophobia"

Others just thing they are useful for nothing but harming people, therefore unnecessary, and if they were gone, nobody would be killed. Brilliant thinkers.

I suspect others believe that their rights to be free of fear (of anything, including guns) preclude your right to own one. If guns were removed, the fear would focus on something else they fear.

Still others probably think that to get control of the country the way they want it, resistance would be encountered- and so, guns must be taken from the people unlike them, so they cannot resist when their "moral revolution" comes about.

Lots of reasons in anti-gun people's heads. Everything except the understanding that it's people who commit murders and violence, not guns. That alone tells you they aren't playing with a full deck.

 

I agree with " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ".

 

because leftists are mad that people are basically evil and that utopia is a farce and they have to have someone to blame.

 

LOL! I think guns suck. You should read my posts.
You could not pay me to lug around a gun - unless I had to live in a place like Baltimore.
Your image of 2nd amendment supporters is way off the mark. Yet another reason why gun control pols lose elections.

 

So how are you going to fight off the government?

 

The same way you fight off the government now. With your brain.

 

I agree with that. The only way (ultimately) to stop these massacres (almost 260 YTD 2019) is to get rid of the 2A, or significantly amend it. Anything else is kicking the can down the road.

 

the law abiding can buy machine guns and assault riffles, just takes them more effort, why does one need to be able to buy these with no background check at 18?

 

Why exactly should such be considered acceptable? How does the above apply with constitutional rights, and what punishments are being referred to on the part of yourself with regard restrictions on constitutional rights? Which constitutional rights have been restricted to punish the general public at large for the actions of criminals?