Easy:
- Remove the legal, bureaucratic and other feel-good rules that impede people from effectively defending themselves against the crazies and thugs that couldn't give two shits about your rules. That means no more 'gun free zones', no more waiting periods, no more 'may issue' conceal carry permits, no more limiting the types of firearms, ammunition and accessories law abiding citizens can own. It means what the second amendment says: "Shall not be infringed".
- Increasing sentencing for VIOLENT offenders. Make using a firearm in the commission of a crime all the more punishable, that's fine too. In order to free up prison space, I would also advocate we stop persecuting consensual activity between adults, which represents the 'crimes' of the vast majority of inmates...but that's another topic.
- Put more cops on the streets. It's the one thing that that is proven to reduce violent crime.
- Make it easier to detain individuals that have demonstrated mental instability. Admittedly, that one treads perilously close to stepping on civil liberties and you can be sure the ACLU would be all over it. Nevertheless, as we have seen from so many of the mass killing crazies, they provided amble evidence of mental imbalance well prior to murdering innocents.
1. The more guns option. Don't see this making much of a difference. Anyone who wants a gun already has 10.
There you go lying again. Nothing in my #1 point calls for more guns, only the removal of impediments that prevent people from defending themselves. Please, stop lying. It doesn't help your case.
And how'd that gun free zone thing work out? About the same as at the Colorado theater, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and all the other places where maniacs choose to murder innocents?
What you obtusely choose to overlook is that my first suggestion would have also meant that the people could have had the means to defend themselves rather than cowering in the corner waiting for a good guy with a gun to arrive and save their ass.
If business owners are forced to serve everyone and anyone that walks through their doors, even if that means violating the tenants of their religion, then you sure as shit can't make a case that a person should be refused service based on a right codified in the Bill of Rights.
You want to return to the days of strict private property rights? Then fine, I'm all for allowing businesses to define who and what can be brought on to their property. But you can't have it both ways.
Stop being obtuse. I CLEARLY stated that we should not imprison people for consensual activity between adults, which would free up the vast majority of jail space and resources. Further, we spend ungodly amounts of money on violent recidivist criminals, far more than if we would have locked them up long term instead of releasing them time and time again only to be recaptured, retried, re-sentenced and reincarnated. Stop the cycle and we'd save significant resources...and lives.
3. I like it, but can we afford it? Wonder how the number of cops we have compares to other countries?
You seem to have no problem with the cost of implementing vast bureaucracies to restrict second amendment rights. Now you have a fiscal issue? Please. The money could be easily found with common sense prioritization.
4. Sounds ok at first. Will non crazies find themselves locked up for political reasons? Seems ripe for abuse. Also infringes on a much more important right.
Like I said, that's not an easy one, but clearly, we need to reevaluate when a person's mental illness makes him a danger to others and worthy of detainment. You have no problem stamping all over second amendment rights, but other rights are sacrosanct? How about a little consistency?
