Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's not up to me or you for that matterWhen the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a yearWhen the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they workAnd yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone
Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm
So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.
No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.
Sounds like a great plan. ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. If you do that crime drops. Great. Do it.
Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problemWhen the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a yearWhen the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they workAnd yet the fact remains that less than . 003 percent of the population will use a firearm to murder anyone
Most murders committed with guns are committed by people who are already banned from possessing a firearm
So again the mere ownership of guns is not the problem
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.
No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
Choices have consequencesPrison is punishmentHow is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.
Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.
And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns
FYI Accused is not the same as convicted
Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people. We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them. Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.
Criminals choose to commit crimes
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:
1) Punish the offender
2) Get restitution for victims when possible
3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.
Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.
It's not up to me or you for that matterWhen the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a yearWhen the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.
No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
So, they took bad people off the street and locked them up.
Sounds like a great plan. ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. If you do that crime drops. Great. Do it.
The powers that be don't want to enforce the laws because as long as people are arguing about stupid shit like gun ownership they keep their control
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problemWhen the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a yearWhen the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work325 MILLION people in the United States and less than .003 percent can't be trusted to own a firearm. Keep those .003 percent away from society. Problem solved.
No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Choices have consequencesPrison is punishmentInterestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.
And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns
FYI Accused is not the same as convicted
Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people. We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them. Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.
Criminals choose to commit crimes
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:
1) Punish the offender
2) Get restitution for victims when possible
3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.
Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.
I have no sympathy for any piece of shit criminal
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Choices have consequencesPrison is punishmentInterestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.
And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.
Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.
And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.
those who are convicted of felonies cannot possess guns
FYI Accused is not the same as convicted
Those convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns after they've paid their debt to society; however, we only imprison people. We don't bother to try and rehabilitate them. Making them second class citizens in order to con them into supporting liberals isn't working out too good.
Criminals choose to commit crimes
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
The objective of a good society with respect to people who violate the law:
1) Punish the offender
2) Get restitution for victims when possible
3) Rehabilitate the criminal so that you don't need to worry about them in the future.
Instead, we say tough shit to the victims; we make our criminal element a little more dedicated to their craft; we put them back into society as second class citizens, locked out of normal society, and all but guaranteeing that they will have to commit crimes in order to live.
I have no sympathy for any piece of shit criminal
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Never thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting. Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people. As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others. But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.
But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed. I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.
You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gunIt talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
So guns aren't the problem
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
Listen to yourself: gun control.
If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.
Never thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting. Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people. As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others. But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.
But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed. I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.
You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gunIt talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
So guns aren't the problem
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
Listen to yourself: gun control.
If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.
The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gunIt talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.
Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.
Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.
So guns aren't the problem
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
Listen to yourself: gun control.
If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.
The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?
You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
So guns aren't the problem
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
Listen to yourself: gun control.
If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.
The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?
If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problemWhen the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a yearWhen the federal gun laws we have on the books are strictly enforced they work
No they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.
Jesus told people to sell their cloak ang buy a swordNever thought that I'd actually be saying this, but sometimes a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Case in point was this morning when some idiot went into a church in Ft. Worth TX and started shooting. Seems there were several church attendees who happened to have a concealed carry permit, and when the gunman started shooting, several of them pulled their guns and shot the gunman before he could kill more people. As it was, he killed 1 and injured 2 others. But, he's no longer around, as the church goer's shot him dead.
But, you have to admit..................it's pretty fucking sad when you can't go to church unarmed. I kinda think that Jesus who is the Prince of Peace would be pretty disappointed.
Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problemWhen the city of Richmond VA decided to enforce federal gun laws their murder rate dropped 20% in less than a yearNo they don't. Nidal Hasan proved that. Add to that the recent attack on a military base in Florida a couple of weeks back.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
The city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:
1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.
Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
Listen to yourself: gun control.
If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.
The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?
If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
How would you insure the security of a free state?
You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun
So guns aren't the problem
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.
Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.
Listen to yourself: gun control.
If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.
The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?
If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
Listen to yourself: gun control.
If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.
The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?
If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
How would you insure the security of a free state?
I have not advocated the ban of guns either, and if I had to choose I'd ban tobacco before guns. I have always stated I support law abiding, sane and sober citizens the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a legal firearm.
The only way to accomplish this is to have background checks, issue licenses to gun owners and for all guns to be registered. And a national data base, different than the FBI rap sheet, but including arrests for violence, domestic violence, drug and sex trafficking and being civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.
Other lesser offenses such as DUI's, assaults and battery, criminal threats, bad conduct and dishonorable discharges too should be recorded and their privilege to own or possess a firearm needs to be further investigated before any gun is sold, given to or loaned to such a person.
Listen to yourself: gun control.
If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.
He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.
When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.
The drunk in question will lose his license and any car he may own with two Felony Convictions (DUI with personal injury is Felony in CA).
I would suppose you have a point, but I don't know what it is. Either way, the moment that drunk is out of prison, NOTHING stops him from buying more booze... and passing a law to make DUI didn't stop him the first time. How does it stop him the second time?
If he's on parole or probation the terms and condition will order him to abstain from alcohol and drugs; the possession of alcohol or drugs; to be tested for same; he will not have 4th A. rights, and any violation of the conditions can result in his return to prison to finish his full term.
There is still NOTHING that prevents him from getting the alcohol or driving a car. In order to make all things equal you would have to be advocating for a ban on the manufacture of alcohol as America banned automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc.
You have not advocated for the ban of alcohol, cigarettes, or high performance vehicles, have you? What you've described is punishment for people who abuse alcohol and drive dangerously.
Gun control advocates want to ban firearms. Somehow simple analogies elude you. I'm all for punishing people who misuse or abuse the Right to keep and bear Arms. Threaten your neighbor with your firearm - go to prison. Shoot your firearm at an unsafe distance around others (our local laws say 500 feet) and will pay a hefty fine.
How would you insure the security of a free state?
I have not advocated the ban of guns either, and if I had to choose I'd ban tobacco before guns. I have always stated I support law abiding, sane and sober citizens the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a legal firearm.
The only way to accomplish this is to have background checks, issue licenses to gun owners and for all guns to be registered. And a national data base, different than the FBI rap sheet, but including arrests for violence, domestic violence, drug and sex trafficking and being civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others.
Other lesser offenses such as DUI's, assaults and battery, criminal threats, bad conduct and dishonorable discharges too should be recorded and their privilege to own or possess a firearm needs to be further investigated before any gun is sold, given to or loaned to such a person.
