Some simple questions

[TemplarKormac]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Laws are no deterrent against anything, neither is the promise of punishment to a determined man.

Most of these clowns have histories. Take them out of society early, and permit no reappearance.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Laws are no deterrent against anything, neither is the promise of punishment to a determined man.

Most of these clowns have histories. Take them out of society early, and permit no reappearance.

So, why do we bother to have laws?

 

[fncceo]

Laws are no deterrent against anything, neither is the promise of punishment to a determined man.

Most of these clowns have histories. Take them out of society early, and permit no reappearance.

So, why do we bother to have laws?

People obey the laws because of social convention. When an unpopular law is passed, such as prohibition, it will be widely flouted.

Most people agree with the laws of society, even if they occasionally flout those laws themselves.

Without the voluntary participation of the great majority of the citizenry, laws are ineffectual and there will never be enough police to enforce them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Laws are no deterrent against anything, neither is the promise of punishment to a determined man.

Most of these clowns have histories. Take them out of society early, and permit no reappearance.

So, why do we bother to have laws?

Most people respect the law. Some don't.

Why legally carry a concealed firearm?

 

[okfine]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Name a few laws.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Name a few laws.

What is the reasoning behind this demand?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Most people respect the law. Some don't.

does not really answer the question.

Why legally carry a concealed firearm?

I never figured that one out, seems just a pain in the ass for no reason to me. Sort of like riding a motorcycle. Some people love it, I cannot understand the attraction. Then again I like to golf and most people cannot stand the idea. Each to their own.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Laws are no deterrent against anything, neither is the promise of punishment to a determined man.

Most of these clowns have histories. Take them out of society early, and permit no reappearance.

So, why do we bother to have laws?

You only one law and do not commit murder and yet humans refuse to obey that simple law, so all the laws we have is too make our politicians richer with the fines and jail time that our government make money from...

 

[OldLady]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

That is a great plan. As soon as you get the 2nd Amendment repealed you should move forward with it.

Till then, fuck off and quit shitting on the Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone. Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine. If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood. What, do you live in Baltimore?

Hmm. You would make for a great dictator. You can 'forbid' the sale of guns and ammunition, but guns and ammunition will find their way into the country via black markets and illicit sales. And what is the consequence of that happening? You have armed assailants killing people en masse because they are incapable of defending themselves.

I should be able to live anywhere in this country in relative peace, if that means blowing some thug away to maintain said peace? So be it. Do you expect me to just uproot myself each and every time criminals threaten to overrun my neighborhood?

Liberals like you live in constant fear, despite accusing gun owners of the same. No. I can quite well assure you that people who have the ability to defend themselves live in far less fear and more peace than you do; as in, far more peace and less fear than someone such as yourself citing gun laws like scripture to the violent offender in your home willing to kill you for your possessions.

Oh, and one more thing.

"Murder machine"?

Guns are inanimate objects. They have no free will or conscience, unlike the wielder. You can use a gun to preserve innocent life, or you can use a gun to take it. A gun on its own is harmless. Just as the nuclear weapons we have at the ready. They don't kill unless they are made to.

 

[DGS49]

I wonder if Nevada had a law saying, "If you can't buy a gun in your home state, then you can't buy one here either," would have helped. He couldn't have purchased a gun in California.

OTOH, where does California get off saying 18 is not "adult enough" to buy a gun? You can buy a car, or a house, or a chainsaw. You can DIE IN AFGANNI-STAN, for Christ Sake! Fucking Nannies.

 

[Seawytch]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

 

[Seawytch]

I wonder if Nevada had a law saying, "If you can't buy a gun in your home state, then you can't buy one here either," would have helped. He couldn't have purchased a gun in California.

OTOH, where does California get off saying 18 is not "adult enough" to buy a gun? You can buy a car, or a house, or a chainsaw. You can DIE IN AFGANNI-STAN, for Christ Sake! Fucking Nannies.

Can't buy booze, can't buy weed, can't but cigarettes, can't buy guns. I'm okay with that. (I'm even more okay with them not dying in Afghanistan either)

 

[TemplarKormac]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

So... to deal the coup de grâce:

Assault-style rifle used in Gilroy shooting could not be sold in California, state attorney general says - CNN

There was a law on the books preventing the sale, distribution and transport of the weapon used in the Gilroy shooting in the State of California. Yet, however, that same weapon was purchased in Nevada made its way into California, and was used on innocent people.

Unless Nevada had the same laws restricting the sale and transport of this particular weapon, or any other states in the US, then there were plenty of ways for a murderer to circumvent California's gun laws.

Moral of the story? You need the whole country to forbid the sale and transport of weapons of this kind, from anywhere in the world. You need the country to effectively ban the sales of firearms in general.

Not happening.

Gun laws are useless unless everyone is enforcing them. No matter how strict one state's gun laws are, if all 50 states are not enforcing similar laws, you will always have a way for a murderer to get his hands on an illicit firearm.

Meaning:

CA's super strict, uber liberal gun laws failed those people in Gilroy.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Start hanging violent criminals publicly and swiftly after being convicted could serve as a real deterrent. Also free up lots of jail space for not-so-bad people that still need locked up, AND make it safer for them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

Curious, all of your ideas seem to come when the gunman is a white guy.

I don't fucking care who it is. Muslim, Jew, Christian; Black, White, Asian or Pacific Islander.

Race is irrelevant to my argument.

Stick to the subject matter of the thread or post elsewhere. I'm not playing this childish game.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?
Sure. Take 95% of guns from everyone.

That's infringing. Unconstitutional.

Forbid their sale anywhere in this country and that includes ammunition. Anyone without a special permit (which one doesn't get without VERY good reason, training and regular re-vetting) caught holding a gun is shot dead on sight.

That's infringing. Unconstitutional.

You don't have a "right" to a murder machine.

I have the right to defend myself and others by any means that will accomplish the task.

If you don't want to be attacked by criminals, move out of their neighborhood.

Better to kill the bad guys instead, don't you think?

 

[Seawytch]

We all saw what happened in Gilroy, CA over the weekend. And I started wondering to myself: of all the gun laws and restrictions passed in the state, which ones could have prevented the mass shooting?

I kept wondering: How many more gun laws and restrictions need to be passed in order to effectively stop this senseless taking of innocent life? Moreover, how long will this go on before the ultimate goal is reached and all gun violence is stopped?

None of you liberals know, do you? Laws are nothing but words on paper or on a computer screen, they carry no weight unless they are dutifully enforced.

So why do you continue pushing more gun laws and more restrictions? When will they start doing what you say they'll do?

You see Chicago? Yeah. All those gun laws and restrictions and the city is just about as dangerous as Iraq and Afghanistan were at the peak of the War on Terrorism.

Do you have any policy ideas that aren't geared toward infringing on the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the dangers the underbelly of the real world brings?

So, when will you stop with the mindless rhetoric and do something productive to curb the violence?

Just some simple questions I know I'll never get a straight answer to.

You guys always seem to have an answer if the gunman is a Muslim. How come all your great ideas fly out the window when the gunman is a white guy?

And gun laws don't help in one state if another state hands guns out like candy at the fair.

So... to deal the coup de grâce:

Assault-style rifle used in Gilroy shooting could not be sold in California, state attorney general says - CNN

There was a law on the books preventing the sale, distribution and transport of the weapon used in the Gilroy shooting in the State of California. Yet, however, that same weapon was purchased in Nevada made its way into California, and was used on innocent people.

Unless Nevada had the same laws restricting the sale and transport of this particular weapon, or any other states in the US, then there were plenty of ways for a murderer to circumvent California's gun laws.

Moral of the story? You need the whole country to forbid the sale and transport of weapons of this kind, from anywhere in the world. You need the country to effectively ban the sales of firearms in general.

Not happening.

Gun laws are useless unless everyone is enforcing them. No matter how strict one state's gun laws are, if all 50 states are not enforcing similar laws, you will always have a way for a murderer to get his hands on an illicit firearm.

Meaning:

CA's super strict, uber liberal gun laws failed those people in Gilroy.

Yeah, you're right they do only work when everyone enforces them....which is why we need the assault rifle ban reinstated.

The laws in Nevada failed the people in Gilroy.