Common Sense Gun Control

I think there's a pretty large gap between where we are now and "chop their faces off".

 

Then you are more than likely a person with criminal tendencies. Sorry. The only people that would have to worry about being stoned to death or their hand cut off are criminals. Everyone else would go about their daily lives. Eventually you would run out of people to stone or cut off their hands, at which point peace would be the order of the day.

 

Im just replying to what he said. It was not a commentary on claiming we are on the verge of such.

 

This kind of prohibition is less about motive and more about ability. It should prevent them accessing firearms through legal means and if they are caught in possession of firearms, they'll immediately be in trouble.

It's also not clear that he wanted to kill anyone in this case, especially given his apparent suicide afterwards. His desire the have guns could well have been because he also believed that armed citizens are necessary and that he felt he needed them for self defence (rationally or not).

 

Because I oppose cruel and unusual punishment, that means that I am "more than likely a person with criminal tendencies"?

LOL, that is ridiculous. Embarrassingly so. Pardon me for being civilized and wanting our system of jurisprudence to reflect that goal.

Like I said, you can find these sorts of punishments in places like North Korea or Iran. They would be the absolute last places on earth that I would desire to copy their system of justice.

Needing even to say this is shocking. It is hard to imagine that you are trying to be serious.

 

Let's put it this way, if people having their hand cut off for theft would affect your daily life in the slightest, then you're a criminal.

 

Well he mentioned live in prison for gun related crimes and then posited going 10 over the speed limit with life in prison to enforce his point I think.

I think his point was that serious time for serious offenses is what needs to happen because it is the application of penalties that people fear that make them obey the law, or at least the majority.

Right now the reason crime is so high in leftist hives is that they make plenty of laws, but enforce only the ones they can use to gain more power over people and against their opponents.

Leftists don't write laws to stop crime.

Leftists write laws to gain power.

 

That is a facetious argument at best. North Korea is that way because it is a totalitarian regime. In a free Democratic society, that wouldn't be the case. You would still be free to do whatever you desired, but there would be heavy penalties for breaking the laws. How is that a bad thing?

 

I understand the notion of serious punishment for serious crimes. That has its limits, and IMO, his suggestions went far over that limit.

As far as the laws to gain power notion, I think there is a fair amount of truth in that belief.

 

The problem with this though is that you know leftists would love it if they had the power to stone people to death.

Let's not forget that it is often the regime in control that gets to define what being a "criminal" is.

If leftists had their way, they'd have executed everyone that walked through the Capitol on Jan 6.

 

Its perhaps a mild exaggeration, but not by all that much and certainly not facetious. Im not sure that even North Korea would give life in prison for ANY gun crime.

Life in prison for lets say someone that lies on their application for a gun permit about a prior crime does not deserve to spend their life in prison while someone brutally murdering someone with a knife is probably out in 18 years.

It is a nonsensical suggestion that would never fly given our constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. It is so preposterous it is not worth spending a great deal of time debating.

FWIW...It is worth noting that I am far from being a gun nut. I do not own any guns and have no intention of doing so. It is not my issue even slightly.

 

Laws exist to punish, not prevent. There isn't a single law in this entire universe that has ever stopped someone from doing the thing which it was written for. However, if you make the punishment for breaking those laws extremely severe, then most people will stop breaking them. You'd be left with a handful of unsalvageable idiots who would still break those laws anyway, but eventually those people would be weeded out from existence.

 

You know what I find funny about the whole "cruel and unusual" thing?

Execution wasn't considered "cruel and unusual" during the founding. Torture was, but not execution.

 

It is the murder that matters, not the choice of weapon. You cant punish a person for any minor gun crime more harshly than if they committed murder with a different weapon.

Your position is silly.

 

True. In fact only criminals will put fourth the additional effort to get a gun that they cannot legally possess. Why would it be preferable that criminals be the only ones with guns?

 

If you are stupid enough to brandish and threaten someone with a weapon in public, then you are stupid enough to kill someone with said weapon. That goes for ANY weapon. I just used guns as an example.

 

Its still not considered cruel and unusual for a sufficiently bad crime.

FWIW, I oppose the death penalty, not because I worry about the criminal, but rather because I don't see killing people as a legitimate function of the government.

From the criminal perspective, I would think that life in solitary confinement would be worse than death.

 

That's a good point.

But then, people who commit and have a history of violence leading to a murder shouldn't be out of prison where they can even get a gun.

Certain people don't deserve the chance to re-offend.

 

It is the action that matters, not the weapon. If someone kills someone with a gun, buy all means put them in jail for life for all I care. The problem is that there are a lot of minor gun crimes, and those people in no way deserve to live the remainder of their life in prison. The notion is unrealistic and silly.

 

I am all for long sentences for violent criminals.

 

The point is to nip it in the bud as soon as possible. These are the types of people that we don't need in society. If we started imposing the most severe penalties imaginable for even the most seemingly innocuous <insert weapon here> crimes, then guess what most people would stop doing?

 

Or we could just continue to coddle people with criminal tendencies and release them back into society. How's that been working out so far?

 

I understand your point.

I just don't see it as realistic or even desirable in any fashion. It would be wrong to ignore the act (or lack of act), and instead just harshly punish based on the existence of one type of weapon. Your hatred of guns does not mean that we throw away our humanity.

 

It’s amazing that this has to even be said (criminals don’t care about laws) yet there are quotes that date back to the Roman Empire that support the law abiding citizen bearing arms because the criminal always will bear them.

 

If we lived in a world that required proof instead of just accusations I'd probably agree with this more.