What Would Happen If Guns Were Banned?

[Wonky Pundit]

The whole F&F plan was stupid. However, it doesn't have anything to do with disarming Americans who are sane, law-abiding, and responsible enough to have firearms.

Knowingly supplying arms to Mexican drug cartels through previously-identified straw buyers was not just stupid but also most certainly illegal. I believe that it does fit the definition of "treason", as well.

I won't claim to call it illegal (or treason) only because I don't have the legal background to do so. BUT, if there were strong legal reasons for F&F to be classified this way (and if there were evidence to support those reasons), I'm pretty sure the Teapublicans in the House would not be fixated on the debt ceiling right now....

And make no mistake, those criminal cartels have invaded American soil. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California have all reported the widespread encroachment of the criminal drug cartels into their states.

Arizona has posted signs warning travelers on their highways that the southern part of their state is not safe.

Texans report that Los Zetas are committing mass murders in their state, burying headless corpses in mass graves.

I sound like a tin-foil-hat, ultra-right conservative, don't I?

In fact, I'm a liberal Democrat. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket all of my adult life, because I've always viewed the Democratic party as the one that upholds our freedoms. Democrats have traditionally protected our civil and Constitutional rights to be treated equally regardless of race, gender, or religion; to be free of governmental intrusion into our privacy and health decisions; to be free of government-sponsored religion.

I voted TWICE for the current Administration.

I'm not posting on this thread out of some brainwashed ideology. I'm posting because this is the evidence I've found, and this seems to be the only logical way it fits together.

I don't doubt you: I've seen the news reports, too.

The reason the southern border area is such a mess right now is, quite simply, that America is a nation of coke-heads. Arming every citizen near the border will not solve that particular problem.

The only things that WILL solve the problem are (1) closing and sealing the land border, as Panama did with Colombia, or (2) legalizing cocaine.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with either of those, by the way.

 

[paravani]

Wow, you really are a wonk!

This response is one that only a wonk could have written.

It's late, though, and even later where you are, so I'll respond tomorrow.

The whole F&F plan was stupid. However, it doesn't have anything to do with disarming Americans who are sane, law-abiding, and responsible enough to have firearms.

Knowingly supplying arms to Mexican drug cartels through previously-identified straw buyers was not just stupid but also most certainly illegal. I believe that it does fit the definition of "treason", as well.

I won't claim to call it illegal (or treason) only because I don't have the legal background to do so. BUT, if there were strong legal reasons for F&F to be classified this way (and if there were evidence to support those reasons), I'm pretty sure the Teapublicans in the House would not be fixated on the debt ceiling right now....

And make no mistake, those criminal cartels have invaded American soil. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California have all reported the widespread encroachment of the criminal drug cartels into their states.

Arizona has posted signs warning travelers on their highways that the southern part of their state is not safe.

Texans report that Los Zetas are committing mass murders in their state, burying headless corpses in mass graves.

I sound like a tin-foil-hat, ultra-right conservative, don't I?

In fact, I'm a liberal Democrat. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket all of my adult life, because I've always viewed the Democratic party as the one that upholds our freedoms. Democrats have traditionally protected our civil and Constitutional rights to be treated equally regardless of race, gender, or religion; to be free of governmental intrusion into our privacy and health decisions; to be free of government-sponsored religion.

I voted TWICE for the current Administration.

I'm not posting on this thread out of some brainwashed ideology. I'm posting because this is the evidence I've found, and this seems to be the only logical way it fits together.

I don't doubt you: I've seen the news reports, too.

The reason the southern border area is such a mess right now is, quite simply, that America is a nation of coke-heads. Arming every citizen near the border will not solve that particular problem.

The only things that WILL solve the problem are (1) closing and sealing the land border, as Panama did with Colombia, or (2) legalizing cocaine.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with either of those, by the way.

-- Paravani

 

[tjvh]

Keep in mind that the U.S. government is a rarity in the world in one interesting way: it was established before the population was disarmed. So, as a practical matter, banning firearms here would be about as effective as banning alcohol.

Instead, the people should focus on making sure that only qualified - and sane - people get their hands on these things legally.

And who gets to decide who gets to exercise their Freedoms, and who does not? Criminals are of course not who I am referring to. Does someone with a gun grabbing axe to grind get to make up a psyche test, or are people just supposed to trust their Freedoms to the idea that ideologies will not play any deciding role in whether they are allowed to protect themselves, and their families? We all know how well that works.

 

[Dr Grump]

]Mexico is, in fact, a model of what gun-control advocates would like to see here in the US.

Total, utter BS....

 

[thanatos144]

Of course it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people. So, we should ban stupidity.
That, unfortunately, is even more difficult that banning firearms, so, what to do, since something is obviously necessary.
Perhaps anyone buying a firearm should have to pass a safety instruction course similar to that for a license to drive. This would also provide the occasion for further psychological evaluation.

Driving is a privilege not a right....Why does something have to be done? Why do we all have to change cause of one fucking psycho? We are not to blame.

 

[paravani]

Knowingly supplying arms to Mexican drug cartels through previously-identified straw buyers was not just stupid but also most certainly illegal. I believe that it does fit the definition of "treason", as well.

I won't claim to call it illegal (or treason) only because I don't have the legal background to do so.

That "Operation Fast and Furious" was illegal isn't really debatable. "Straw man" purchases of firearms are illegal in every state in the union. That is why so many gun dealers and ATF agents objected to participating in "Operation Fast and Furious" -- because they knew that their actions were entirely illegal. That is also why approval of the operation HAD to come from "the top level of the DoJ".

BUT, if there were strong legal reasons for F&F to be classified this way (and if there were evidence to support those reasons), I'm pretty sure the Teapublicans in the House would not be fixated on the debt ceiling right now....

"Treason" is a nasty word. It's not one I bandy about casually, and I'm sure the Pubs aren't eager to point fingers that might turn back on themselves.

Knowingly and deliberately sending functional military arms to enemies of the US is treason. Two of these military rifles were used in the murder of a US Border Patrol officer.

The main defense against a charge of treason over "Operation Fast and Furious" is that it was ostensibly done for "the right reasons" -- i.e., to trace the path of illegal firearms importation to Mexico. Had it succeeded, the end might have justified the means; as it stands, however, it's a highly-illegal fiasco.

Taken alone, Fast and Furious by itself was stupid and illegal, but not treasonous.

Taken alone, attempting to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans without first repealing the 2nd Amendment is also stupid and probably illegal, but not necessarily treasonous.

The problem is that when you combine those two separate actions, and view them as a pattern of behavior by the same entity -- i.e., the US Government -- THEN you have a pattern of treason, of waging war on your own citizens through a campaign of illegally disarming them AND illegally arming their enemies.

When we combine the government's culpability for the results of "Operation Fast and Furious" with its current efforts to infringe on the Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms, "Fast and Furious" no longer appears to be so well-intentioned.

To make the point, let's ask ourselves this question: "If these actions had been performed by any corporation or separate members of a militia in America, wouldn't the officers of that corporation or heads of that militia now be awaiting trial for treason? Wouldn't any employees or militia members who were directly involved also be in jail?"

If an independent corporation (remembering that corporations are legally liable for all actions performed in their name by any of their separate employees) were to send arms to the enemies of America, to those against whom we are waging war -- and were to subsequently attempt to disarm American citizens who have the need and the legal right to defend themselves against those very same enemies -- would we not be seeking to prosecute that corporation for treason?

If an independent militia were to engage in those same actions, would we not round up its members and prosecute them for treason?

And make no mistake, those criminal cartels have invaded American soil. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California have all reported the widespread encroachment of the criminal drug cartels into their states.

Arizona has posted signs warning travelers on their highways that the southern part of their state is not safe.

Texans report that Los Zetas are committing mass murders in their state, burying headless corpses in mass graves.

I don't doubt you: I've seen the news reports, too.

The reason the southern border area is such a mess right now is, quite simply, that America is a nation of coke-heads.

Here, Wonk, is where you reveal yourself to be a true Washington insider -- a "wonk" who rubs shoulders with the movers and shakers in DC.

No, Wonk, America is not a nation of coke-heads. We may be a nation of drunkards and pot-heads -- that's possible, though offensive to contemplate. But we are most certainly NOT a nation of coke-heads.

The 99% haven't been able to afford cocaine for more than a decade. Only the rich and powerful of our nation -- the 1% in Washington DC -- can afford to be "coke-heads".

And frankly, I seriously doubt that anyone reading this is going to be pleased to learn that the drug habits of our nation's leaders are fueling the war with Mexican drug cartels. That's not where we like to think our tax dollars are going.

Arming every citizen near the border will not solve that particular problem.

The only things that WILL solve the problem are (1) closing and sealing the land border, as Panama did with Colombia, or (2) legalizing cocaine.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with either of those, by the way.

Wonk, you've been breathing that rarified atmosphere too long. You're out of touch.

Here are some quotes from a different forum where I started a similar thread. These are posts written by folks who live in Texas and other border states:

Yep our own government was caught supplying guns to the cartels. Get the guns out of the hands of us Texans and there will be one boarder wide open. Especially since our government has gone so far as to instruct boarder agents to back up from the boarder since it is so dangerous. This may be a bit tin hat, but say war starts on the boarder. Would that be a good reason to implement martial law? In that situation would that many complain?

If the fed let the Texans loose there wouldn't be a crime problem on the border.

We have been invaded for years - Now people notice ?

Yes it is true. 3/2/12 A raid was made at a site near the Arizona Mexico boarder where there was a cache of weapons and ammunition found. The amount was said to be enough to supply a small army including rocket launchers.

This was the second cache found in 2012 The link I had to this, which had photos of the cache of weapons is a dead link now. If I can find a working link I will be sure to post it.

I truly believe we could see a war with Mexico as they believe this land was stolen from them. Never mind the fact that it was bought and paid for a long time ago. I don't however believe it would be your average, hard working Mexican who is just trying to feed their families.

I can see the gangs like MS13 and all the drug gangs getting into the fight. Pretty sad we already have to avoid areas due to Mexico's drug violence.

Just wonder how many shots going across the boarder counts as a war?

I've been at war with Mexico for a long time, so has most of Arizona.

Is this true? Do you know any specific details? What can you tell us is happening in Texas and surrounding areas?

Ohhhh yeah. Los Zetas are firmly planted all the way up in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex.

The Zetas are considered the worst drug cartel operating in Mexico and the US. They make MS13 look like kindergarteners. Highly organized and BRUTAL.

When you see on the news about a mass grave found on some ranch in Mexico or Texas with all the heads cut off? Los Zetas.

And now they're operating in the US. They arrested a couple of guys in Dallas.

Actually, the Zetas were at one time a part of the Mexican military. When Mexico decided to bring their military into the drug war, we sent some special forces soldiers to go down there and give them all kinds of training in things that we learned in Columbia hunting down Pablo Escobar. Eventually, they decided they could make more money on the other side and became a drug cartel themselves. So they became a drug cartel with a military style command and control structure with connections into the corrupt Mexican army through which they could (and did) obtain military grade weapons. And, yes...they are extremely brutal.

The area between interstate 8 and the Mexico border has been posted as off limits to all citizens due to violence from drug cartels and illegal immigrants. And Pres Bammy has stopped construction of the border fence.

When we try to defend the border our own government comes after us. We shoot someone smuggling drugs or guns or people into the state from Mexico no matter what else they did we are the ones in the wrong. We try to defend our own border and land we are arrested. No this will not be solved until we are allowed to uphold the laws already on the books. And that goes for Texas and Arizona.

If the feds would stay the hell out of it this would be fixed real quick.

I lived about ten miles north of the border for several years. They are NOT "just over the border". They are HERE. I have had several incidents on my own property with the Narcos including one with a Ak and some with ARs OR a real M-4. I have heard full auto on many nights. We have things going on down here that you never hear on the nightly news. I had to move.

Most Americans of Hispanic descent are good hard working people. The last county I lived in was over 90 percent. They have lived on this land for generations just like me. They don't want this either. Some also have left the area like me due to the violence and lack of jobs for their kids. Most just want to be left alone. The Narcos and Coyotes won't let them.

Land owners are sitting on their porches at night with guns just to try to protect what is theirs. And this is not new folks. This has been going on for years.

It is the silent war here on our own soil and the fed, with their wonderful leader will not do anything about it, even to the point of restricting US citizens from protecting their property and families. As well as instructing border patrol agents to stay out of the area.

Much of what happens here no one ever knows about because the MSM will not report on it, and many here have ideas why. Very few people know about the two raids on weapons catches along the Arizona Mexico border that had local sheriff offices, BATF, DEA and other groups involved.

These were not over the counter weapons. M-16s, M-4s, AKs, RPGs, claymores and hand gernades and large amounts of ammunition much of which was loaded in mags, were all found in both raides. This along with cell phones, military gear, and vehicles were included.

This was not reported by MSM and any reports that did get out were quickly hushed.

Along the border between Mexico and Arizona, and Texas there is gun fire every night. Fishermen have been shot on the Rio Grande river.

So for those who do not think there is a war going on, or think if anything were to happen it would be over in a few hours, come on down. Would be happy to take you down on the border so you can get a first hand education which our illustrious government ignores.

I'm sure this is more than any of us Northerners ever suspected was going on within our borders. It certainly goes a long way towards explaining the unreasonably high murder rates in the South, though, doesn't it?

The bottom line is that Americans near the border ARE heavily armed. They are not being allowed to use their arms. Our government has made the decision to run up the white flag along the border, to allow drugs and criminals into our country.

And why? When law-abiding citizens are armed and ready to form active militia to combat the problem, why does our government intervene in favor of the drug cartels and illegal traffic across the border? Why are these citizens being prevented from defending their land and our nation?

I think maybe you've given us an answer:

I don't doubt you: I've seen the news reports, too.

The reason the southern border area is such a mess right now is, quite simply, that America is a nation governed by a bunch of coke-heads who need to keep the supply of their drug flowing.

(Bold italics mine, added for clarity)

-- Paravani

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Knowingly supplying arms to Mexican drug cartels through previously-identified straw buyers was not just stupid but also most certainly illegal. I believe that it does fit the definition of "treason", as well.

I won't claim to call it illegal (or treason) only because I don't have the legal background to do so.

That "Operation Fast and Furious" was illegal isn't really debatable. "Straw man" purchases of firearms are illegal in every state in the union. That is why so many gun dealers and ATF agents objected to participating in "Operation Fast and Furious" -- because they knew that their actions were entirely illegal. That is also why approval of the operation HAD to come from "the top level of the DoJ".

I don't know enough about the case to say whether it was legal or illegal. For now, I'm standing by that.

Here, Wonk, is where you reveal yourself to be a true Washington insider -- a "wonk" who rubs shoulders with the movers and shakers in DC.

Honest, I have no inside information whatsoever. The average East Coaster makes it to DC more often than I do.

No, Wonk, America is not a nation of coke-heads. We may be a nation of drunkards and pot-heads -- that's possible, though offensive to contemplate. But we are most certainly NOT a nation of coke-heads.

The 99% haven't been able to afford cocaine for more than a decade. Only the rich and powerful of our nation -- the 1% in Washington DC -- can afford to be "coke-heads".

You are aware that "crack" is cocaine, aren't you? Were you also aware that a bag of crack has a street value of only about $20?

Wonk, you've been breathing that rarified atmosphere too long. You're out of touch.

And what IS a realistic solution to cocaine trafficking on the border, if not to stop the coke itself?

Here are some quotes from a different forum where I started a similar thread. These are posts written by folks who live in Texas and other border states:

Look, I'm agreeing with you, here. The southern border areas are a mess. The only way to solve the problem is to attack the source of it.

 

[paravani]

And what IS a realistic solution to cocaine trafficking on the border, if not to stop the coke itself?

The ATF has supplied more than 1,300 semi-automatic weapons to the drug cartels through straw purchasers. The Border Patrol has been given orders to stop patrolling certain areas of the border. The federal government has arrested law-abiding citizens in border states for defending their lands and their homes against trespassers and raiders. The Park Service has closed borderland parks. The Highway Commission has posted signs warning law-abiding citizens to stay off of some publicly-funded roads because they're "dangerous".

So... the border is open. We've helped the criminals obtain military-grade firearms. They have federally-protected free passage across privately-owned lands. They also have free passage without interference across now-closed borderland parks. They have their own private stretches of publicly-funded roads and highways to use to transport their illegal imports.

Are you kidding me???

We're not "stopping" the criminal traffic in drugs or anything else. We're laying out the welcome mat!

"Please Mr. Mexican Cartel Leader, is there anything else the US Government can do for you? Please just give us a holler, and we'll jump to it right away!"

Look, I'm agreeing with you, here. The southern border areas are a mess. The only way to solve the problem is to attack the source of it.

You're obviously not a gun owner, but I'll ask anyway:

Do you know the first rule of a gunfight?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.


Bring a gun.

The second rule is like the first: If the other guy has a military-grade automatic rifle, bring a military-grade automatic rifle.

These are the type of rifles being used by the cartels -- military-grade, fully automatic AK47s, many of which were supplied to them by our very own ATF. (Yes, they supplied them as "semi-automatic", but I understand that it's a fairly simple process to convert them back to fully automatic if you aren't worried about breaking any laws.)

Ordinary American citizens cannot own fully automatic rifles except in Texas, where you need your local sheriff to sign off on your application to own one. (This is not new legislation, but was put in place during the mob wars of the Prohibition era.)

Of course, American law enforcement officers have fully-automatic rifles, but they are grossly outnumbered in this war. There are so many more criminals than there are law enforcement that we have now given up guarding portions of our border -- which is NOT a good policy, in my opinion.

So, first of all, we need to start guarding the border again -- that's a no-brainer. And since our law-enforcement is so grossly out-numbered in this battle, we need to consider inviting law-abiding American citizens to join militias led by local law-enforcement.

There are more than 270 million firearms in American hands for the express purpose of forming "a well-regulated militia". And there are law-abiding Americans who would eagerly use their firearms to defend their nation, provided that they had the support of local law enforcement.

Law enforcement in our nation may be grossly outnumbered... but armed law-abiding Americans number approximately 120 million, which is over twelve times larger than the largest state-sponsored army in the world.

(North Korea has 9.5 million troops, including 8.2 million reserves, if you're curious.)

... Yet here we are, in the middle of a battle for our southern border... debating taking away the Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to own the very weapons that could win the war???

What could we possibly be thinking?

-- Paravani

 

[The Infidel]

What would happen?

Put a sign in your yard that reads "this home is gun free"

Get back to us in a year or so..



Edit:
You can't call the cops because in your scenario they don't have guns either.

 

[Sarah G]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq6bpZQEHkw]Michael Jackson Heal The World Live Gala 1992 - YouTube[/ame]

The world would be a better place..

 

[paravani]

The world would be a better place..

You really didn't read a word of the thread, did you?

-- Paravani

 

[mudwhistle]

What would happen if guns were banned? People wold still find a way to get one anyways if they wanted one bad enough.

Law-abiding people would continue to abide by the laws. If the 2nd Amendment were repealed and guns were banned, then law-abiding people would disarm.

The only people who would "still find a way to get one" would be criminals.

My question is, what would happen then? Would gun violence in this country decrease if guns were banned?

-- Paravani

What would happen?

You would invent a new class of criminals. Many of them would be your neighbors and relatives.

 

[paravani]

What would happen?

Put a sign in your yard that reads "this home is gun free"

Get back to us in a year or so..

Apparently our lawmakers, in their wisdom, believe that's the appropriate response to a madman's attack on children -- hang out a sign that says,

This Nation is Now Gun Free

This is their plan.

I wonder how the people and law enforcement in Arizona feel about it?

Signs in Arizona warn of smuggler dangers
By Jerry Seper and Matthew Cella of The Washington Times
Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west, attests to the violence. He said his deputies are outmanned and outgunned by drug traffickers in the rough-hewn desert stretches of his own county.

“Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona,” he said. “They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has.

“This is going on here in Arizona,” he said. “This is 70 to 80 miles from the border - 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States.”

He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but what he got were 15 signs.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer condemned what she called the federal government’s “continued failure to secure our international border,” saying the lack of security has resulted in important natural recreational areas in her state being declared too dangerous to visit.

In a recent campaign video posted to YouTube, Mrs. Brewer - standing in front of one of the BLM signs - attacked the administration over the signs, calling them “an outrage” and telling President Obama to “Do your job. Secure our borders.”

... Rising violence along the border has coincided with a crackdown in Mexico on warring drug gangs, who are seeking control of smuggling routes into the United States.

... T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,500 of the Border Patrol’s front-line agents, said areas well north of the border are so overrun by armed criminals that U.S. citizens are being warned to keep out of those locations.

“The federal government’s lack of will to secure our borders is painfully evident when signs are posted well north of the border warning citizens that armed and dangerous criminals are roaming through those areas with impunity,” he said. “Instead of taking the steps necessary to secure our borders, politicians are attempting to convince the public that our borders are more secure now than ever before.

“Fortunately, some responsible civil servants are candidly warning the public about the dangers that exist not just along the border but, in some cases, well beyond,” he said. “This situation should alarm all sensible people, and should spur endless demands that our legislators take whatever actions are necessary to restore law and order to these areas.”

Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, said the federal government’s new border security plan apparently is to “erect some signs telling you it’s not safe to travel in our own country.”

“If you are planning on loading up the station wagon and taking the kids to Disneyland, the federal government doesn’t advise going through Arizona - it’s too dangerous and they can’t protect you,” said Mr. Poe. “These signs say to American citizens, the federal government has ceded this area to the drug cartels. Don’t come here; we can’t protect you.”

... Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, called the signs “an insult to the citizens of border states.”

“American citizens should not have to be fearful for their lives on U.S. soil,” he said. “If the federal government would do its job of enforcing immigration laws, we could better secure the border and better protect the citizens of border states.”

Michael W. Cutler, a retired 31-year U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) senior criminal investigator and intelligence specialist, said the BLM warning signs suggest the U.S. government is “ceding American territory to armed criminals and smugglers.”

.... “How much more land will our nation cede to drug dealers and terrorists? At what point will the administration understand its obligations to really secure our nation’s borders and create an immigration system that has real integrity?” Mr. Cutler said.

“At the rate we are going, the ‘Red, White and Blue’ of the American flag will be replaced with a flag that is simply white - the flag of surrender.”

I do believe it is time to call on the American citizens to form a well-regulated militia.

-- Paravani

 

[there4eyeM]

Of course it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people. So, we should ban stupidity.
That, unfortunately, is even more difficult that banning firearms, so, what to do, since something is obviously necessary.
Perhaps anyone buying a firearm should have to pass a safety instruction course similar to that for a license to drive. This would also provide the occasion for further psychological evaluation.

Driving is a privilege not a right....Why does something have to be done? Why do we all have to change cause of one fucking psycho? We are not to blame.

What does 'similar' mean?

A large uproar about such violence will elicit some action; it could go too far as seen by those obsessed with arms. They should be interested in moderation.

Who is 'we'?

 

[thanatos144]

Of course it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the people. So, we should ban stupidity.
That, unfortunately, is even more difficult that banning firearms, so, what to do, since something is obviously necessary.
Perhaps anyone buying a firearm should have to pass a safety instruction course similar to that for a license to drive. This would also provide the occasion for further psychological evaluation.

Driving is a privilege not a right....Why does something have to be done? Why do we all have to change cause of one fucking psycho? We are not to blame.

What does 'similar' mean?

A large uproar about such violence will elicit some action; it could go too far as seen by those obsessed with arms. They should be interested in moderation.

Who is 'we'?

we is Americans . The ones who are not facists like you

 

[there4eyeM]

Driving is a privilege not a right....Why does something have to be done? Why do we all have to change cause of one fucking psycho? We are not to blame.

What does 'similar' mean?

A large uproar about such violence will elicit some action; it could go too far as seen by those obsessed with arms. They should be interested in moderation.

Who is 'we'?

we is Americans . The ones who are not facists like you

'Fascist'. Such an easy word to throw around. Most often, by thoughtless individuals whose use makes obvious the total lack of comprehension!

I, a fascist?! What absurdity! But, of course, the poster does not know me, has paid no attention to my posts, and rarely gets much right.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Keep in mind that the U.S. government is a rarity in the world in one interesting way: it was established before the population was disarmed. So, as a practical matter, banning firearms here would be about as effective as banning alcohol.

Instead, the people should focus on making sure that only qualified - and sane - people get their hands on these things legally.

And who gets to decide who gets to exercise their Freedoms, and who does not?

The law does. Just like it always has.

Does someone with a gun grabbing axe to grind get to make up a psyche test, or are people just supposed to trust their Freedoms to the idea that ideologies will not play any deciding role in whether they are allowed to protect themselves, and their families? We all know how well that works.

Psychiatrists already have plenty of tools at their disposal to determine whether someone is sane - tools that have nothing to do with guns.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

And what IS a realistic solution to cocaine trafficking on the border, if not to stop the coke itself?

So, first of all, we need to start guarding the border again -- that's a no-brainer. And since our law-enforcement is so grossly out-numbered in this battle, we need to consider inviting law-abiding American citizens to join militias led by local law-enforcement.

As I said, guarding the border is fine with me, but using "citizen militias" for the job would be about as effective as putting lipstick on a pig.

If we're going to do it at all, we need to do it right: wall off the land border from the Pacific to the Gulf, and militarize the whole thing.