If you've ever ridden a bicycle very much on public roads you will notice lead wheel weights literally litter the road in the gutters and the lead gets broken down and washed right into the water sources. That is a far greater source of lead contamination.
"NO ONE NEEDS......" AGAIN? This has got to be among the most impractical and moronic back door gun control schemes yet. What determines the destructive power of a bullet is where it strikes. For example, a .44 Magnum round striking the hand is less likely to be fatal than a .22 between the eyes so it's back to the shallow end of the think tank for those who still don't know that Americans are blessed with a "Bill of Rights", not a "Bill of Needs".
Why do pro gun control people always mention hunting? Tell me where in the second does it mention hunting?
Brilliant.... Next, write a post telling us what the quantity of legally-purchased ammunition for a firearm has to do with "a child's right to life". But, perhaps one has to have a very, VERY animated imagination even to be able to put those two things into a single concept.... Hint: you can have various kinds of ammunition stacked up in your house to the ceiling, and then stuffed into the attic also and it would not impinge on "a child's right to life". When is the hyperliberal, Looney Tunes faction ever going to confront the simple fact that a weapon is TOOL! It does not think, it does not 'vote for Trump'. It does NOTHING on its own. And, if crimes are committed by HUMAN BEINGS while using a firearm, that particular HUMAN BEING should be punished to the full extent of the law, with no amnesty, no 'forgiveness', no 'time-off-for-good-behavior', or any of the other marshmallow-crap that liberals always inject into the criminal justice system!
Don't go round and round with me dear, these bad faith arguments are terrible rhetoric. At all times my right to my own life and the defense of it, along with the defense of my loved ones and our means of living, outweighs the feelings of yourself and others that somehow my ability to defend myself from predation effects you. You're a sheep, not a wolf: You're not a predator so you have nothing to fear from my defense against predation. The only one who would fear a 3rd party being able to defend themselves against predation is a predator.
She doesn't seem to grasp that humans are part of the food chain and actually occupy its most important role: Apex predator. If we don't kill and eat enough of them, they'll overbreed and consume all plant life leading to a chain reaction killing them, the rest of the predators, and ultimately ourselves. I'll never understand the anti hunting types.
Disarming the People is "step one", in the tyranny handbook. Only one party seeks to disarm the People. Remember this in November.
My ammunition supply does not harm anyone or place then in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger. So.... Always.
And, in fairness, the Left could possibly make an argument that there should be new, extremely severe restrictions on firearms ownership by citizens -- IF VIOLENT CRIMINALITY WERE ALMOST NON-EXISTENT. But, of course, that's utter nonsense! Things have gotten so uncontrollable now in the United States that even those relatively few criminals who have actually been convicted for committing violent crimes serve as much as HALF their prison terms! Obviously, the first (FIRST) step toward creating a truly safe situation where people don't feel the pressing NEED to defend themselves from violence is to make life absolute, horrible HELL for those who do commit those kinds of crimes! Down-to-earth translation: Stick their criminal asses in prison and keep the sons-of-bitches THERE for the full term! . "Whatta ya mean 'I've got to serve the whole 15 years...?!'"
I could not agree more. Solving violent crime is simple. Don't give them any term. Lock up violent people until it can be proven that they no longer pose a violent threat to society. If that is over night, then good. If that is forever, then so be it. If they commit their violence with a weapon of any kind, then LWOP. For every violent criminal locked up, release one who is incarcerated for a victimless crime. Problem solved.
You raise an interesting set of possibilities, Hotdogr, but I still like the idea of declared prison sentences for specific periods of time. Why? Because if these sentences are LONG enough (they should all be doubled), and if it is clearly understood that for crimes of violence committed with firearms, it will be absolutely mandatory that the full-term is served. If we could really achieve that, I surmise that 'the word in the 'hood' is that you can go shoplift, loot a store, burglarize a home, or whatever else -- but you'd damned sure better not (NOT) be doing any of that **** while carrying a gun! Otherwise, it's a really long stretch for you in 'Butt-fugg City', and no sob-sister 'advocacy' lawyer can spring you out, either.... .
I understand what you're saying. I just cannot fathom a jailer looking a person he *knows* to be a violent criminal in the face and watching him walk out into free society knowing full well he's going to hurt or kill someone else.... just because his arbitrary timer has expired. I also have a fundamental problem knowingly releasing people who are too dangerous to be allowed to keep and bear arms onto our peaceable society.
Well, certainly if inmates exhibit behaviors or develop a 'track-record' during their sentences that shows them to remain being a 'clear and present danger' to society, then perhaps they should be further 'detained' in a 'mental health facility' or something of the kind -- with locked doors and no release until their, uh, mental balance is fully rehabilitated... how's that? If we were to adopt incarceration in prison, per se, beyond the limits of the verdict's sentence, the ACLU and the prisoners' 'advocacy groups' would be all over it like stink on ****, and then it would end up in the courts for years, where the concept would probably be thrown out. But, generally, I like your thinking!
My plan would require a pretty extensive refitting of the criminal justice system, whereas yours would retro-fit pretty well. I like it. Either way, we as a people would have to finally decide once and for all that violent crime is no longer going to be acceptable behavior, and be willing to back that up by forcibly segregating the violent from our peaceable society. We must be willing to keep them there until they no longer pose a violent threat to the innocent, in a verifiable way. Any violent recidivism should be met with immediate LWOP. To the topic of the thread, the ONLY way to be sure violent criminals do not have access to firearms in THIS country is to lock the violent criminals away. Once we start taking the violent criminals off the streets, and are willing to KEEP them there, our violent crime rate will plummet.
I wish I could do more than merely 'liking' your post. You expressed the needed remedy perfectly. I think of dangerous, violent criminals as being like a toe or a fingertip that develops gangrene. Ideally, the best thing to do is AMPUTATE that diseased part and thus save and protect the rest of 'the body'.
How about no. Don't listen to these people, Americans. Keep your rights. Remember, you're fighting for the whole Western world here. It's not a battle you chose, but one millions of us are rooting for you in.
That would be a violation of the Second amendment. That's like banning hammers or springs or various components of the gun that's infringement on the right.
Next thing you know he'll be telling us how he served in the military and has 15 guns and goes hunting every year. That's my favorite of the gun grabber rhetoric.
It's up there with "I am not anti semitic-my doctor is Jewish or "I am not a racist, the guy I play racketball with is black"
you're dealing with posters who have no clue about guns, gun laws, gun uses etc-they are leftwing operatives who think attacking gun rights is an effective way to harass conservatives
So, your solution is to go on a big 'rights-banning' spree?! Just ban one thing after another until the law-abiding population is disarmed and completely without any means of self-defense? That would be every totalitarian dictator's wet-dream! And, meanwhile, the criminal population would run wild with NOTHING to stop them anymore....
