" ... shall not be infringed..."

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
" ... shall not be infringed..."

+ 10^10

Any suggestions which go beyond "shall not be infringed" are evidence that the suggestor has been lured over to the dark side.

I'll agree to gun control only when it is at the level of regulating any nukes larger than 1 kiloton.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I'm not even good with background checks. A gun is personal property, just like a toaster or a screwdriver. No background checks for screwdrivers. And gun ownership actually gets extra constitutional protection.

+1

Can you demonstrate you have a need for that screw-driver? Is it registered? Have you taken your safety classes? Demonstrated proficiency?

One of the things that really bugs me about gun control is felony aspect to the penalties. Sure cars are regulated, but making a small mistake doesn't get you charged with a felony. With guns every regulation, every prohibition, every thing is a felony. It's like they don't like guns or something.

When running a stop-sign gets you 5-10 in the big-house, then I'll accept vehicle regulations as at least being similar to gun regulations.

The answer isn't to add laws.

It's to stringently enforce existing ones.

Felons with guns should go back to the pokey.

Felons that commit crimes with guns should go back to the pokey indefinitely.

Murderers should be convicted of murder and stripped of their right to live, regardless of their motivation (race/sex/road rage), and regardless of the implement used (spork/akm/shovel).

The problem with lawmaking, is that no one can keep it simple. In a gun crime that ends with murder, the rules are different than in a knifing. In a hate crime, the rules are different dependent on the motivation. But in both circumstances, an individual decided to end the life of another. Why bother with semantics?

Sorry, bud. Gun control just doesn't work. Problem with the laws or adding more laws is only the good guys follow them. Murder is already illegal, so this should be a moot problem, eh?

I do appologize for some of the other guys being rough on you, but sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield. Today, you are the bug....

quote:

Originally posted by Mister Joshua:
The problem with lawmaking, is that no one can keep it simple.

It's not that nobody can make it simple, or that it's somehow impossible to drastically simplify laws... I'm convinced that it's in the best interest for lawyers to make laws as complicated as possible, and as numerous as possilbe, so that other lawyers can demand $300+/hour from someone, to sort it all out... And if you don't hire someone to sort it out, you stand any number of any opportunities to screw your life up.

The tax code is one particular animal. 17,000 pages and growing, and if you have any significant wealth you will probably have to use a tax attorney sometime in your lifetime.[/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by Gun_Enthusiast:
It's not that nobody can make it simple, or that it's somehow impossible to drastically simplify laws... I'm convinced that it's in the best interest for lawyers to make laws as complicated as possible, and as numerous as possilbe, so that other lawyers can demand $300+/hour from someone, to sort it all out... And if you don't hire someone to sort it out, you stand any number of any opportunities to screw your life up.

I think it's that politicians must be seen to be doing something. "Sure there are already laws against murder, but vote for me and I'll pass laws against committing murder while wearing a hat. My opponent likes criminals who wear hats. He just doesn't understand. Something must be done. Vote for me."

My son just voted in his elementary schools election for class president, treasurer, etc. He told me he had trouble deciding for whom to vote. One boy promised to make school lunches better but the other promised to make recess longer. Tough decision. One candidate for treasurer promised to make lunches cheaper and give the money saved to everyone who voted for her. It was funny, only because it was so sad.

Fuck restrictions on the law abiding and just punish the criminals.

Look, you have a gangbanger who's been convicted of three violent crimes by three separate juries. Just kill him and get it over with.

You've got a pimp who deals in whores and cocaine. Abuses the women and uses violence to defend his turf. Try him. Convict him. Kill him. If he has committed three violent crimes and been convicted by three separate juries for it just string him up and get it over with.

You've got your uber-scumbag who likes to rape, murder, or molest children. Just kill him.

As for the lesser forms of filth, they'll re-evaluate their career choice when they see their mentors hanging from the gallows or cooking in old sparky.

Make crime painful, even deadly for the criminals and they'll stop doing crime, then we can stop inventing ways to make the law abiding citizens' lives miserable.

What do I think?

Two words.

Fuck.

That.

I think enforcement officials time could be better spent actually enforcing the laws on the books and keeping tabs on scumbags out on parole, instead of bothing law-abiding citizens who are exercising their rights.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
What do I think?

Two words.

Fuck.

That.

I think enforcement officials time could be better spent actually enforcing the laws on the books and keeping tabs on scumbags out on parole, instead of bothing law-abiding citizens who are exercising their rights.

+1

I can't add anything that hasn't already been said.

Two thumbs down to that idea.

Bureaucratic nightmare which will be circumvented by anyone who wants to slang guns. Fine so I have to hold inventory for a year before it becomes available to sell to kids and criminals. Big deal.

Also, this would require a national or at least regional gun registration with all its attendant risks for misuse and the facilitation of future harsh seizures.

The trillion dollars that would cost could do more good elsewhere.