Ante up anti gunners...what will you allow for normal gun owners, what do you want?

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
111,968
52,237
2,290
Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?

Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........
 
I think you should be required to get a license to own any gun, by federal mandate. Something akin to a pilot's license. There is no civilian use for assault weapons. Properly stored, registered, and safety-retrofitted handguns and hunting rifles are fine. Why not retrofit all guns to require the fingerprint of the gun owner to fire them? Makes perfect sense, and still allows you to fire your gun to your penis's, I mean heart's, content.
 
Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?

Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........

Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable. Here's what I'd consider fair

1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.

By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge). Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.
 
I think you should be required to get a license to own any gun, by federal mandate. Something akin to a pilot's license. There is no civilian use for assault weapons. Properly stored, registered, and safety-retrofitted handguns and hunting rifles are fine. Why not retrofit all guns to require the fingerprint of the gun owner to fire them? Makes perfect sense, and still allows you to fire your gun to your penis's, I mean heart's, content.
Define assault weapon
 
Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?

Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........

Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable. Here's what I'd consider fair

1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.

By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge). Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.
I agree but would add a mandatory training class and "driving" test to ensure you know how and when to use the gun.
 
Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?

Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........

Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable. Here's what I'd consider fair

1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.

By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge). Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.
A little phrase comes to mind... "shall not be infringed." So, I guess what you are suggesting is a constitutional amendment fundamentally changing, or completely removing, the 2nd. Am I on the right road here?

Seeing as you did not provide a link to your source information on Germany, I took it upon myself to do a quick Google search (about 1 minute), and found an interesting, albeit possibly casual, correlation:
While the US's rate (5 per 100,000) is somewhere north of 5x that of Germany (.86 per 100,000) for murders, we only executed 69 more people than Germany (2,014 v. 1,945). Also, the police officers per capita is higher in Germany (303.8 per 100k) than in the US (243.6 per 100k). I wonder if the correlation is more than casual...
Germany vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
 
The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
enhanced-buzz-7283-1401888987-8.jpg


In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.
 
Okay....for all of you who say you support the 2nd Amendment, own guns and only want common sense gun control.....what will you leave for those who want to own and carry guns for self defense?

Be strong, be brave........be truthful...........this is your moment......tell us where your line is...what you want...what you think we should be allowed to have........

Okay, let's say you guys would want to be reasonable. Here's what I'd consider fair

1) Gun ownership should be a privilege, not a "right".
2) You should only be able to own a gun after undergoing a thorough background check, which includes neighbors, ex and current spouses and employers, any one of whom can put the kaybosh on you having one.
3) Guns designed for military use should not be legal for civilians to own.
4) You have to show cause for why you need a gun.

By the way, this is not terribly different than current gun laws in Germany (which are much stricter today than they were when the Nazis were in charge). Germany has 17 million privately owned guns for 80 million citizens, but they only have 250 gun homicides a year.


You'd have to have a constitutional change for that...
 
1) Background check for every acquisition.

2) Registration of every firearm.

3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.

Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns. We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.
 
The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
enhanced-buzz-7283-1401888987-8.jpg


In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.
I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?
 
1) Background check for every acquisition.

2) Registration of every firearm.

3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.

Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns. We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.
Gee, where have we seen this before????

Oh, yeah, Nazi Germany. What a wonderful bunch of fellows they where...
 
The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
enhanced-buzz-7283-1401888987-8.jpg


In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.
I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
 
1) Background check for every acquisition.

2) Registration of every firearm.

3) Serious penalty for possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer.

Basically, regulate every firearm as we already regulate machine guns. We have millions of those in private hands and none of them are used irresponsibly.
Gee, where have we seen this before????

Oh, yeah, Nazi Germany. What a wonderful bunch of fellows they where...

Also, all of current western Europe.

But you know, inevitable naziism.

:blahblah:
 
The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
enhanced-buzz-7283-1401888987-8.jpg


In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.
I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
Yet you mock responsible gun control.
 
The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
enhanced-buzz-7283-1401888987-8.jpg


In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.
I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
Yet you mock responsible gun control.

Define it then.
 
The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
enhanced-buzz-7283-1401888987-8.jpg


In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.
I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
Yet you mock responsible gun control.

Define it then.
??? I just did. Our regulation of machine guns is very effective. Expand it to include all firearms. No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
 
The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
enhanced-buzz-7283-1401888987-8.jpg


In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.
I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
Really? how many criminals have been stopped by your beloved gun laws? Huh? How many? I got news for ya, criminals, by definition, don't give a #$*! about your gun laws.
 
The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
enhanced-buzz-7283-1401888987-8.jpg


In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.
I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
Really? how many criminals have been stopped by your beloved gun laws? Huh? How many? I got news for ya, criminals, by definition, don't give a #$*! about your gun laws.

You want me to give you a tally of the people who DIDN'T shoot someone? Really?
 
The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.
Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:
enhanced-buzz-7283-1401888987-8.jpg


In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.
I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.
Yet you mock responsible gun control.

Define it then.
??? I just did. Our regulation of machine guns is very effective. Expand it to include all firearms. No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.
Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top