Gun Control needs to be instituted

My, you put a lot of effort into your whataboutisms while avoiding the subject at hand. BTW quote an example of my extreme outrage.

Ouch, quite the take down.
BTW what was your collective narcissism score?

 

And thus, not firearms.
In the US, around 1100 firearms were used to commit a violent crime yesterday.
How many were not?

The word has not seen a major war - or a nuclear war - since 1945.
Seems to be working OK.

 

if you wish to discuss the war on drugs, go back to the late 1800s and the birth of the PROGRESSIVE republican party, social engineering at t finast,
outlaw booze, and the Harrison act of 1912 most narcotics were severely restricted, the US went so far as insist foreign nations adopt a similar stance to get trade agreements...the result is dirty dangerous drugs in the hands of criminals...my mother was addicted back in the 50s and sixties, she was a nurse and while it affected her work in a small way, she did not start robbing walamart...regulated narcotics given cheaply to registered user is the only solution to the addiction issue, in fact fentynal, because of its potency is a result of its illegal nature, i am 25years sober with a lifetime of experience within the actively using crowd as well as the sober crowd

 

IOW, when The "Progressive" "Left" chanted "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" it was just another Big Lie.

 

Think it through.
An armed people would deliver instant perfect justice to any criminal who dared to use a gun in their presence.
The people are there when violent crime happens -- the armed police do not want to be there and try very hard not to be there when violent crime erupts.

“An armed security officer on campus where a gunman killed 17 people never went inside the high school or tried to engage the gunman during the attack, a Florida sheriff said Thursday. That officer has now resigned.

“Scot Peterson, a sheriff's deputy assigned to the school, "was absolutely on campus through this entire event. He was armed, he was in uniform," Israel said.”
NBC NEWS, Parkland shooting: Armed school resource officer 'never went in' to school during shooting, The sheriff said the revelation made him "sick to my stomach. There are no words I mean these families lost their children.”, By Daniella Silva, Feb. 22, 2018.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...urce-officer-never-went-school-during-n850441

 

"Freedom isn't FREE", Lucky, as any honorably-discharged American military veteran can tell you!

It's pointless to argue with your faction... you'd disarm law-abiding citizens, and leave us at the mercy of ruthless criminal monsters who don't care what you think, what I think, what either of us wants, or what we 'hope' for in safety and security as members of this American society. The criminals will simply kick down your door, or assault you on the street, shoot you with their illegal weapons, and laugh their asses off. They're CRIMINALS, Lucky -- why doesn't your faction 'get' that...?!

Anyway, I did my best to give you and your faction an amplified explanation of why many of us in the "guns-rights" faction feel that -- particularly in the UNITED STATES -- we must have the Second Amendment-guaranteed right to defend ourselves with weapons as good as those that criminals use to harm all of us. And, I didn't even make a dent....

So, rather than hurl insults, I'll simply say what I always say when I've come to the 'end of my rope' in these futile discussions -- if you don't like the way the Constitution is written, then AMEND IT! The Constitution has already been amended 27 times, so, go for it!

 

Yes, you are likely to be right in this statement BUT why are we in a position where such action (armed people delivering justice) are needed to begin with? What has made people believe that going to a school, a bar, a church, a stadium, etc,. and kill people is the right thing to do. In addition, the ability to buy and get guns to begin with, has made that more possible given that if that person was unable to purchase guns, the probabilities of going to one of these places and killing would not likely enter his mind, to start with.

It is guns (and the ability to buy them) that is causing these people to even think of doing these actions.

 

They WOULD...
...if not for the 2nd Amendment...
...and the fact we won't let them.

 

Really? Homicides aren't crimes? Mass killings aren't crimes? When did this happen?

Btw, this is the second time you've shifted the goalposts away from your O.P.

Your O/P:

 

What you are talking about is called "Vigilantism" and it is illegal for the simple reason that having anyone make a decision that affects another person's life is not only against the Constitution but against common sense. You want to give everyone the ability to decide if what you are doing is right or wrong and also give him the ability to institute the justice he believes in, and do it without the proper guidelines for declaring culpability being followed?

That is why we have a police force and a legal system. Yes, your way would solve some problems but cause a mountain of other problems far worse.

The Nichols killing 3 weeks ago is a perfect example of a group of people that decided among themselves to impart the justice they believed should happen. The problem is that it seems clear and evident that they overstepped their boundaries and killed the man without the man being of any threat to them.

You want those kinds of problems occurring every day by arming people and giving them the right to impart the justice they feel is right?

 

I am glad you agree with my main point about empowering the people. Thanks for doing that.

I showed you that guns will always be as easy for criminals to buy as pizza, cocaine, or sex.

“Affixed to the wall in Mr. Appelgren’s office in Stockholm’s Police Headquarters is a chart showing the increase in the use of hand grenades. Until 2014 there were about a handful every year. In 2015, that number leapt: 45 grenades were seized by the police, and 10 others were detonated. The next year, 55 were seized and 35 detonated.”

“Mr. Appelgren has watched the trend apprehensively, calling it an arms race among gangs.

“I think we’re going to see, if we don’t stop it, more drive-by shootings with Kalashnikovs and hand grenades,” he said. “They throw rocks and bottles at our cars, and they trick us in an ambush. When will it happen that they ambush us with Kalashnikovs? It’s coming.”

“Sellers in Bosnia and Serbia have networks in Sweden’s diaspora and are so eager to unload excess grenades, … that they throw them in free with the purchase of AK-47s, Mr. Appelgren said. In Sweden the street price of a hand grenade is 100 kroner, or $12.50.”
NEW YORK TIMES, Hand Grenades and Gang Violence Rattle Sweden’s Middle Class, By ELLEN BARRY and CHRISTINA ANDERSONMARCH 3, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/world/europe/sweden-crime-immigration-hand-grenades.html

People need to have the power to defend themselves from violent criminals. I too wish this was not necessary.
The longer they remain helpless and vulnerable the more emboldened the predators become.

 

Black Americans had to be disarmed for the Klan and other "vigilance" before gangs could freely prey on them.

An armed people will not be plagued by gangs of vigilantes.

 

only when the black panthers armed themselves did we see RW talk of gun control, and that been decades ago, personally i beieve violence will get further out of hand before anything get done

 

and nothing you gun banners can do will stop violent criminals from getting guns-all you can do is to disarm a lot of honest people-and that of course, is your real goal.

 

guns will always be available, what i wish to stop is the gun use that occurs in the "heat of the moment" just because the guns AREeverywhere

 

What prevents "Vigilantism" and other manifestations of criminality is THE LAW, Lucky. It is exactly "law-and-order" that provides the foundation for our entire society... and, please never forget -- we are a CONSTITUTIONAL republic. It is LAW that constrains criminal behavior, but, when it doesn't, law enforcement is supposed to guarantee the protection and security of all law-abiding citizens. Surely we can agree on that much! But when 'law enforcement' doesn't suppress criminality, or is prevented from fulfilling that mission, it is up to US, the common, ordinary, law-abiding citizens to defend ourselves!

My fingers are worn out trying to convince any of you on the hyperliberal-Left of anything regarding the 2nd Amendment, but if you have any interest in my fairly typical right-wing viewpoint, please review my earlier Post #410. I did my best to point out the underlying reasons why we have so much 'gun-related' crime, and why it would be so wrong to deny law-abiding American citizens the right to be able to defend ourselves effectively.

Afterthought: FAR from advocating "Vigilantism", my little motto regarding this issue is:

"Lock your doors, load your weapons, and MIND YOUR OWN DAMNED BUSINESS!" The viewpoint is clear and entails no threat to anyone -- unless they threaten me first!

 

Pollycy was not promoting vigilantism.

Pollycy was not promoting vigilantism.

Pollycy was not promoting vigilantism.

Pollycy was not promoting vigilantism.

He's not talking about unlawful vigilantism. He's talking about lawful self-defense.

Have you ever heard of the supreme court decision, Heller vs. McDonald?

If not, read the historical decision posted for your convenience below. The poster you've imagined spoke about vigilantism was speaking about the same thing the Court decided. Lawful Self-defense. If you don't know the difference between unlawful vigilantism and lawful self-defense, not a whole lot more can be said.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The decision also held that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

 

OK, I was a federal prosecutor for 24 years, municipal several years before that-what is your solution to that given that is not all that common.

 

M'kay.
How?

 

there is no way, especially with the amount of guns around already to prevent much, as divided as the country is i suggest we all examine ourselfs to determine our true motives

 

Yes! I wish those who want guns banned would try to be honest about it. Alas, we shouldn't hold our breath waiting.

The banners could start here. Almost everything the Democrats legislate as far as guns go, gets knocked down as unconstitutional. Even the Democrats know what they legislate will be knocked down as unconstitutional. Their real missive is to posture, and pander to the rabid anti-gun crowd. That's why they pass legislation that will be rendered moot by the courts.

IF the Democratic Party was really serious about change like they say that they are, they would amend the second amendment and ban guns when they have both the power of the House and the Senate. What was stopping them in the last two years when they had the chance to amend the 2nd? NOTHING! If the gun banning crowd is angry, look to the congress, and the Democrats who could have addressed their anger.

Instead, most of us know the gun issue is used by the Democratic Party as a political wedge, them, (the good guys) vs. lawful gun owners they LOVE to paint as the bad guys, Republicans. Of course, many of us can see right through their deceitful game. Plenty of Independents, and Democrats are lawful gun owners too. Taking away their guns would be political suicide for the Democratic Party, and furthermore, they know it.

So the people who are shouting that gun violence needs to stop are basically barking up the wrong tree. lol

 

Two things.
- The 13+ states that would vote no.
- Their desire to not lose control of the house and senate for decades.

 

years ago-I suspect I have said this before-one of my closer college friends, became a major operative in the GOP-first as one of the higher ranking attorneys in the Reagan and Bush I white house counsel's office, than as counsel to a senate committee etc. She was a non-observant Jewish lady with an off the charts IQ. She had clerked for the US Supreme court. I believe she now is a tenured professor at one of the top law schools. She was anti abortion. I asked her why given she had no religious background that was consistent with most "right to lifers" and she told me that by attacking a right that the left cherished, it kept them on the defensive. I think for many leftwing operatives, it is the same with gun rights. It is nothing more than a political weapon. That is why, when gun banners are put to the task of defending their crime control facades, they almost always fail miserably

 

Let's start with you. What are your true motives?