Punish Law Abiding Citizens and Ignore Criminals. Great Plan. Fucking Idiots.

The anti gun goofballs have not proposed a single thing to take guns out of the hands of criminals. Until they prove competent enough to enforce current law they need to shut the fuck up. Where the hell is the plan to take guns away from the damn criminals? Simpletons will be pulled in by flowery language that does nothing to help prevent the 600 murderers in Chicago last year. I wonder which city has some of the toughest gun laws, pieces of paper that mean nothing, in the country?

So my little leftist wing nuts...When are you going to get serious about taking guns away from criminals? Only the dumbest of our society, those least capable of independent thought, believe punishing law abiding citizens will help reduce gun violence. Only people with an IQ below 60 believe that a piece of paper will prevent insane people from doing insane things.

I am really beginning to worry about the mental capacity of our citizens and our pathetic leaders. Never let a crisis go to waste. The tards demanding new laws that punish law abiding citizens don't even know what the fuck an assault weapon is.


Democrats propose $10,000 fine for gun owners who don’t have insurance

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/d...owners-who-dont-have-insurance/#ixzz2PJTgnkaR

Conn. proposals on guns, other items after Newtown

http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...ter-newtown/0Qn1nJQI3223inrmQWfMFI/story.html

[video=youtube;fbel4SASUPQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbel4SASUPQ[/video]

Obvious you make laws so they won't break them.

Hoofbite said:

Obvious you make laws so they won't break them.

Keep reading...

How is that working so far? Only crazy people believe a piece of paper with a signature by a civil servant will stop other lunatics from killing people. Maybe I am misunderstanding the intent of your post. Chicago is the prime example I like to refer to. 600 murdered despite some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

The left has told their silly little worshipers that the guns are the problem. The worshipers just nod their head and go with it. Until they understand the reality of the situation they will continue to push asinine solutions instead of addressing the real issues. Addressing the real issues makes them very uncomfortable.

JBond said:

Fucking Idiots... goofballs... shut the fuck up... Simpletons... little leftist wing nuts... dumbest of our society, those least capable of independent thought, ... people with an IQ below 60... pathetic leaders... tards

Keep reading...

And people wonder why we don't have rational discussions in political threads.

peplaw06 said:

And people wonder why we don't have rational discussions in political threads.

Keep reading...

Valid point.

but I am still waiting on the plan that will take the guns away from the criminals. Do you happen to have one of those?

JBond said:

How is that working so far? Only crazy people believe a piece of paper with a signature by a civil servant will stop other lunatics from killing people. Maybe I am misunderstanding the intent of your post. Chicago is the prime example I like to refer to. 600 murdered despite some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

The left has told their silly little worshipers that the guns are the problem. The worshipers just nod their head and go with it. Until they understand the reality of the situation they will continue to push asinine solutions instead of addressing the real issues. Addressing the real issues makes them very uncomfortable.

Keep reading...

That's exactly the point, criminals don't care about the laws so what you are looking for exactly is......what?

Sorry I didn't throw an emoticon on there to make it obvious. What's your idea?

Enforce current law and stop scapegoating law abiding citizens. That would be a great start. Instead greedy dems see a chance to grab more money. There has not been a single proposal made that will make anyone safer. This is about power, control, and money.

As a general rule, when you attempt to ban something (anything), you end up creating a black market for it.

In the immortal words of pro-weed folks every where: how's that war on drugs going?
I guess next we can have a failed war on guns.

JBond's moronic editorializing notwithstanding, this is a terrible fucking idea.

VTA said:

In the immortal words of pro-weed folks every where: how's that war on drugs going?
I guess next we can have a failed war on guns.

Keep reading...

I'm not sure the economy could take it. When you look at the price of waging the war on drugs, it's absurd.

JBond said:

Enforce current law and stop scapegoating law abiding citizens. That would be a great start. Instead greedy dems see a chance to grab more money. There has not been a single proposal made that will make anyone safer. This is about power, control, and money.

Keep reading...

So the problem is nothing more than an unwillingness to enforce laws?

Again, law enforcement works for those who will follow.

We're talking criminals, right?

ScipioCowboy said:

I'm not sure the economy could take it. When you look at the price of waging the war on drugs, it's absurd.

Keep reading...

I'm sure it can't but what the economy can or cannot handle doesn't come into consideration when making legislation.
You can always print moar!

Hoofbite said:

So the problem is nothing more than an unwillingness to enforce laws?

Again, law enforcement works for those who will follow.

We're talking criminals, right?

Keep reading...

Part of the problem is the lax enforcement of current law. Take for instance the Gifford shooting. If the sheriff had not been negligent in the years leading up to the shooting that nut job would not have been able to purchase a gun.

The main point of this thread is that the "solutions" dems are suggesting are useless. Even sp recognizes the folly of them. Creating new taxes and limiting the number of bullets in certain guns will not change a damn thing. The people making these suggestions know they will make zero difference in gun violence, so why are they making these outrageous proposals? What is their true agenda/goal?

Remember this is the same government that stood up in press a conference declaring gun shops are the problem regarding gun violence in Mexico while at the exact same time forcing those gun shops to sell weapons to narco terrorists in Mexico. Why would they do that? What is the overall plan?

i think more education is the answer, not spreading fear and crap along the way. the video jon88 posted a great example. the D congresswoman in colorado has ZERO IDEA what a high capacity mag is, yet they must be done away with.

then obama comes out and flat out lies about the newton shooting.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...0-children-fully-automatic-weapon_714527.html

At a fundraiser last night in San Francisco, President Barack Obama said that the Newtown killer gunned down 20 children using a "fully automatic weapon." From the official transcript, provided by the White House:

Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon -- by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.

According to the prosecutor, Stephen J. Sedensky III, the killer, Adam Lanza, "killed all 26 victims inside Sandy Hook Elementary School with a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle before taking his own life with a Glock 10 mm handgun. He says Lanza had another loaded handgun with him inside the school as well as three, 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster," ABC previously reported.

Each of the guns used is a semi-automatic weapon, and not one is an automatic weapon.

So either Obama is wrong--or he revealed something last night about the massacre that hasn't yet been known.

-----
now, what exactly does he want? he's a "gun person" also but yet he doesn't want people to know FULLY AUTOMATIC GUNS are very hard to get and the paperwork is endless in some cases - as is the people who will have to know you have one. even our military doesn't use fully auto weapons anymore.

but that doesn't spread the fear.

so i'm back to education. if you want to have a concealed gun, you must take a class, get your background checked heavily, and take some practice on the gun range before you can have it.

expand this out to "before you can buy a guy, you must be educated on it". if you want guns, then take a day long class and 1/2 day training on the range and you get a permit and no need to run a check every time you go buy a gun. you've invested in your knowledge, you've shown you can handle and clean one, that's it. do a massive background check before you take the class, get approved for it and get your permit.

every other year, take a 1/2 day refresher and renew it.

everything else is just spreading fear to scare people who really have no idea the differences between a 10/22 and an AR/15.

or that a mag can be reloaded and used again.

JBond said:

Part of the problem is the lax enforcement of current law. Take for instance the Gifford shooting. If the sheriff had not been negligent in the years leading up to the shooting that nut job would not have been able to purchase a gun.

The main point of this thread is that the "solutions" dems are suggesting are useless. Even sp recognizes the folly of them. Creating new taxes and limiting the number of bullets in certain guns will not change a damn thing. The people making these suggestions know they will make zero difference in gun violence, so why are they making these outrageous proposals? What is their true agenda/goal?

Remember this is the same government that stood up in press a conference declaring gun shops are the problem regarding gun violence in Mexico while at the exact same time forcing those gun shops to sell weapons to narco terrorists in Mexico. Why would they do that? What is the overall plan?

Keep reading...

Yeah, yeah. I get your stance on the democratic position. I'm just wondering if you have any suggestions of your own or if you can at least point me in the direction of the republican proposals that will reduce gun violence. You can't tell me that "enforcing current laws" is all there is.

I don't know about the Gifford aspect you are referring to. Can you post a link that has what you are talking about.

I'm also kind of confused on how you just say "enforce current laws". There's a couple of things but mainly, law enforcement is only as reliable as the law enforcer which happens to be us humans. Notoriously compromised; ethically, rationally, and just about in any other way you can imagine. Nobody is perfect, some are more fucked up than others, and some just can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. Are these people not already told to enforce the laws that are out there? If not, why?

Also, the idea of being staunchly in favor of current laws while also being just as equally opposed to prospective laws is kind of confusing.

Against prospective laws because they won't work; in favor of current laws because they would work if enforced....with current laws being prospective laws from the past that were likely shit on at the time of their proposal.

Who's making these distinctions on what will work and what won't and what are they basing it on?

I was talking to a marine at a bar last night who is gonna deploy this summer, so he's at Pendleton now but is usually in Yuma or Yucaipa or w/e in AZ. Asked him how he liked it, he said he'd been here before and loves it...only he doesn't like CA's gun laws. I was all what's the big deal about our gun laws, and he's all "no 30 round magazines which is pretty much all the guns I own".

I battle with it. On the one hand, guns are fun as hell. On the other, noone needs an AK. I do think any prohibition laws have, at this point, been shown to be completely useless though.

Hoofbite said:

Yeah, yeah. I get your stance on the democratic position. I'm just wondering if you have any suggestions of your own or if you can at least point me in the direction of the republican proposals that will reduce gun violence.

Keep reading...

Violent crime has been on the decline for about 20 years now, and during that period, we've seen a loosening of gun laws and regulations.

superpunk said:

I was talking to a marine at a bar last night who is gonna deploy this summer, so he's at Pendleton now but is usually in Yuma or Yucaipa or w/e in AZ. Asked him how he liked it, he said he'd been here before and loves it...only he doesn't like CA's gun laws. I was all what's the big deal about our gun laws, and he's all "no 30 round magazines which is pretty much all the guns I own".

I battle with it. On the one hand, guns are fun as hell. On the other, noone needs an AK. I do think any prohibition laws have, at this point, been shown to be completely useless though.

Keep reading...

well an AK would be a russian or euro version of the AR-15 and those are also semi-automatic, or made to be that way, before imported.