otasan56
Member
Our constitutional rights are lining up to be deleted. Starting with the Second Amendment. Will the SC disregard Heller and let AWBII stand? Maybe. I hope that the SC will honor its own Heller decision.
Last edited:
Provided no conservative SC Justice either retires/expires I tend to agree.Our constitutional rights are lining up to be deleted. Starting with the Second Amendment. Will the SC disregard Heller and let AWBII stand. Maybe. I hope that the SC will honor its own Heller decision.
CCW holder gets in a fistfight, felony battery.
He had a gun. Maybe even exposed.
Death?
That's not justice.
Since I am under the firm belief that we are going to have to concede something, my question is what do you think it will be? I have them ranked in order of likelihood as follows.
1. more heavily regulated private sales? i.e. close the "gunshow loophole"
2. More obstacles to buying a gun. i.e. psych evaluations, required yearly training, etc.
3. renewed assault weapons ban
4. "high capacity magazine" ban
5. online gun sales (doubtful)
Adam Lanza was 20 yrs old. If the legal age of purchase were higher than 20 (instead of 18 for a rifle, and 18 for a non FFL handgun), he may have still done the exact same thing if he had access to firearms. But then the story would be slightly different.Nor would raising the age of gun ownership.
Last I knew, stealing your mother's firearms after you've killed her would fall under obtaining them "illegally". He broke no shortage of laws as it stands now. Why do people believe that the thousands of existing laws are ineffective, but that some new law would somehow get the desired results? Its not a logical conclusion to jump to. I have an idea! Lets make stealing guns a crime! And murder, too!!! Lets make walking into an elementary school with loaded weapons intent on causing harm a crime. Lets make carrying concealed with a permit a crime. Oh wait a darn minute...all these ARE already current laws, and they had NO IMPACT on this massacre. You really think a raised age limit is going to stop people that are willing to kill their own parents to obtain access to a firearm? How on eath can you honestly believe that it would make a significant difference when time and again, its been proven that criminals commit crime??!?! (Huh, its almost as if the word criminal and crime shared the same root!!! Who would have thought?!?!!?he would have used illegally obtained firearms
I was under the impression that the goal was to stop the violence, not cater to what the media will say after the mass killing. I read one place that the age to acquire a gun in CT is 21 and if that is true, your argument is further invalidated. However, I have also read that they picked up someone in the bushes outside the school after the shooting and I have also read that the AR wasn't used in the shooting. As usual, I don't think the media has a clue and are making it up as they go along. It is hard to know what is true.Adam Lanza was 20 yrs old. If the legal age of purchase were higher than 20 (instead of 18 for a rifle, and 18 for a non FFL handgun), he may have still done the exact same thing if he had access to firearms. But then the story would be slightly different.
Instead of the media stating he used firearms that he could have legally purchased that morning, he would have used illegally obtained firearms. Or he was allowed access to otherwise legal firearms by someone else who may have some explaining to do. The story isn't the same from a gun rights perspective.
Best case, he doesn't have access to firearms. He waits a year. He gets psychiatric treatment and regains his sanity, gets married and has kids. Nothing bad happens.
People who are eventually diagnosed with bipolar or schizophrenia are completely normal - like you or me - until their late teens and early 20's. Just like you or me, they will likely have clean records and easy access to firearms before their illness is even recognized. And they're at an age where they're in school... where school shootings occur.
I wouldn't say it makes NO difference.
I propose we give up gun free zones.
+1.100% tax credit for purchase of a gun safe
+1.+1000
Let's outlaw murder while we're at it.
CCW holder gets in a fistfight, felony battery.
He had a gun. Maybe even exposed.
Death?
That's not justice.
The ENTIRE budge of the BATFE should be "sequestered".If Congress and the POTUS can't get past the fiscal cliff when are they going to get around to guns?
That's the question, isn't it? Advocating mandatory sentences for 'crime' in which a gun was 'used' leaves the quoted areas open to interpretation. Is armed robbery really 'using' the gun if it's only brandished? What about rape if it's only exposed?I'm no rocket surgeon, but when did he use his gun during the crime of a fistfight?
.....We certainly will not be GIVEN any more freedom....
Of course it's used. It was used to coerce someone by the threat of deadly force into giving up something which the taker wasn't legally entitled to seize.Is armed robbery really 'using' the gun if it's only brandished?
Of course it's used. It was used to coerce someone by the threat of deadly force into giving up something which the taker wasn't legally entitled to seize.
By your "logic", if that same robber tries to rob me, I pull my firearm and he flees, I HAVEN'T defended myself because I didn't SHOOT him.
What I find fascinating (and somewhat suspicious) is the fact that the original comment was absolutely of a kind with comments I've seen over and over that you have no right to respond to deadly force with deadly force because you don't KNOW TO A CERTAINTY that your assailant REALLY meant to kill you since he was prevented from doing so.Dammit boy, you beat me to it!