I gave you fair warning. Here and elsewhere.

I said, jettison your yahoos from the NRA, and rid yourselves from the gun linkages to hatred and rightwingism, or you will suffer gun control.

You called me names. Said I was a gun grabber. And every time I issue that warning, another mass shooting happens, and you lose ground.

Only to start again the cycle of insularity and wagon circling.

WEre the NRA smart, they would IMMEDIATELY start pushing for gun safety instruction, working to implement the least intrusive means towards gun control.

But they aren't. They do things like fight to keep guns in the hands of no fly list suspected terrorists. Domestic abusers and the not so sane.

Far be it from ME to say I told you so.

 

So frightening.

 

And this would have prevented today's tragedy you how?

 

The shooter apparently bought the guns this week, so if tougher measures were in place a week ago, maybe it would have worked....far be it from me to defend Guyzilla though. I was speaking to the issue not the messenger.

 

So, you believe that if the government puts a person on a secret list without any due process, that person should lose their rights?

 

Counter point, if the guns laws were tough enough to prevent this terrorist from getting a gun last week, it also would have prevented a women from protecting herself against the estranged husband/weird-do. I understand your point, and the counter-point I just indicated.

The choice comes with where do you stand. Not allowing the woman to protect herself or fearing the people that would simply wait the week and then commit the terrorist act.

 

I mean the FBI interviewed the guy more than once. Closed investigations on him more than once....what was the point again...the NRA did what? I'd say recognition of Islamic terrorism or Islamic indoctrination, or more education of coworkers and citizens of actions and comments by extremists instead of teaching political correctness would be better. Just my 2 cents...eh!

 

Tougher measures such as? From my understanding the terrorist was a licensed firearm owner and worked at a job in which he carried a firearm. So what tougher gun law would have prevented him getting a firearm? I think this is a case of innocent until proven guilty working against us as he was under investigation for saying kind things about terrorists in the past. I agree that the system is flawed and fails us, but what specifically could have been legally done to have prevented this tragity?

 

See where you're coming from, but law abiding people no matter their views have the right to bear arms. So the NRA saying....we don't want you "Haters" (that are practicing their 1st Amendment right) and then turning around and fighting to preserve the 2nd Amendment right is a HUGE wrong.

I do agree that many people can benefit from training and should take some though. It should not be mandatory however, anymore than mandatory parent training, which would benefit many.

As far as the no fly list. It has already been mentioned, but the fact that the government could put a person on a list without cause that no one is allowed to see is a SUPER infringement on peoples rights.

 

I notice you don't care enough to fight for those folks that simply cant fly now.

 

It wouldn't, but, it would give gun owners some cover when the INEVITABLE HAPPENS. It would save a lot of fights.

 

Putting people who have been repeated investigated by the FBI for extremist comments would be a start. Banning AR-15's would be better.

 

So lets have MOAR feel goody goody but accomplish nothing gun laws, except further restricting the rights of law abiding gun owners,

RIGHT ???

 

I am squarely on the side of banning private ownership of guns if the choice is banning them or stay on the course we are on now. That is where I personally draw the line. They would obviously be a transition period in which time would be needed for the current stoockpile of guns to become functionally extinct, but banning the weapons bans the ability to buy ammo for them. Just because someone somewhere can make their own rounds, which is always the counterpoint, is largely irrelevant to the issue of stopping these shootings.

 

Sure, because banning AR Rifles, will stop Criminals from stealing M-16s from the Military or buying them from those that steal them from Military supply Depots

 

*****************************************************************************************

So, you are a confessed Gun Banneroid, Gun Bans for the law abiding gun owners, proving the real agenda of the confessed gun banner has always been a complete ban on guns......

 

All laws can be broken. Unless you think there should be no laws whatsoever, your response is pointless.

 

I don't think there should be NO LAWS, those are YOUR WORDS, however, MOAR stupid gun laws and gun bans that will only affect law abiding people and moar laws that Criminals will simply ignore, makes no sense whatsoever.

 

You were critical of my position because it is theoretically possible to break a lot. Pointing out that all laws are breakable is the only logical response. That it makes no sense to you does not surprise me given the low level of your arguments thus far.

 

So you want laws that prevent security guards from having guns then? Did gun laws work in San Bernardino or France?

What do you do when they use bombs? The San Berardino terrorists had a house full of those too.

 

**********************************************************************************************

Much of what Cesare Beccaria wrote in "On Crimes and Punishments" in 1764 still holds true today.

Beccaria’s work has become the foundation on which many criminology theories use to build and expand.

Often laws are promoted not by criminologists or "dispassionate students of human nature" but by passionate organisations with narrow minded goals and missions. With a desired end result of introducing legislation that suits their purpose only.

One thing that is essential to any laws regarding criminal justice is that the laws be created by a "dispassionate student of human nature". Beccaria stated that many of the present laws were just "a mere tool of the passions of some, or have arisen from an accidental and temporary need." There is little doubt that the same holds true today.

Laws should be enlightened, rational, logical and should be the greatest good for the greatness number. He felt that criminal laws should be formed with rational thought and not passions.

"On legislation;

Let the laws be clear and simple, let the entire force of the nation be united in their defence, let them be intended rather to favour every individual than any particular classes of men; let the laws be feared, and the laws only. The fear of the laws is salutary, but the fear of men is a fruitful and fatal source of crimes."



" "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. "

 

So you wish to give up your rights, guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, for the government to keep you safe?

You may want to think about who is allowing these people into the country in the first place.

 

He wishes to give up EVERYONES RIGHTS, in exchange for a false sense of security.

 

Good point.

He wants to put EVERYONE's rights on hold, so that the people putting us in danger, can keep us safe.

So sad.

 

Yes ! Exactly !!!