"we can't have laws because criminals will just break them"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

But should someone go to prison for that? Should they be taken away from their loved ones for that?

Wait a sec. Wasn’t someone just complaining about liberals being soft on crime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Fishery regulations are serious business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

But should someone go to prison for that? Should they be taken away from their loved ones for that?

For wildlife poaching? Yes, yes they should. Do you not consider poaching to be a big deal? Are you not at all concerned about species becoming extinct? What deterrents would you suggest for those who are depleting our natural resources?

They aren't hurting anyone more than DACA kids are hurting people and just like they shouldn't be deported and taken away from their families for arbitrary laws people shouldn't be taken away from their families for the wrong sized lobster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

But should someone go to prison for that? Should they be taken away from their loved ones for that?

Wait a sec. Wasn’t someone just complaining about liberals being soft on crime?

This is the kind of insanity that has turned this country into the shithole it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

You how I know you didn't google it?

The guy's name was Abner Schoenwetter, and he imported some lobsters from Honduras, some of which were measured to be "too short". He was convicted of violating the Lacey Act which required him to follow Honduran law, and imprisoned. And yet Honduras filed an amicus brief disavowing the very law he was convicted on. He spent six and a half years in federal prison because a bureaucrat wanted to show who was boss.

Now tell me how a rifle with a 15.9" barrel is so much more deadly than a rifle with a 16" barrel that mere possession is a felony. Or why scary looking guns are more dangerous than non-scary looking guns that function identically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

Maybe prison is extreme, but protecting the population of an economically important species of animal is not. Just because you don't believe the science of how limiting harvesting to older lobsters protects long-term population health doesn't make it not true.

[Anonymous]

And now you're arguing about lobsters.

You people just love the sound of your own voice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

You how I know you didn't google it?

The guy's name was Abner Schoenwetter, and he imported some lobsters from Honduras, some of which were measured to be "too short". He was convicted of violating the Lacey Act which required him to follow Honduran law, and imprisoned. And yet Honduras filed an amicus brief disavowing the very law he was convicted on. He spent six and a half years in federal prison because a bureaucrat wanted to show who was boss.

Now tell me how a rifle with a 15.9" barrel is so much more deadly than a rifle with a 16" barrel that mere possession is a felony. Or why scary looking guns are more dangerous than non-scary looking guns that function identically.

The law is about drawing red lines. That's just inherent in the law. Sentencing can be more flexible.

PS the AR 15 is demonstrably more dangerous than other guns. They were designed to kill many people quickly in combat. Any gun that can be used to manu people quickly should be banned. You can keep your 1791 muskets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/02/15/4-basic-questions-about-the-ar-15/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

But should someone go to prison for that? Should they be taken away from their loved ones for that?

For wildlife poaching? Yes, yes they should. Do you not consider poaching to be a big deal? Are you not at all concerned about species becoming extinct? What deterrents would you suggest for those who are depleting our natural resources?

They aren't hurting anyone more than DACA kids are hurting people and just like they shouldn't be deported and taken away from their families for arbitrary laws people shouldn't be taken away from their families for the wrong sized lobster.

I work in animal welfare so obviously your clever rhetorical turns aren't just abstract fun and games to me.

Yes, crimes against animals should be taken seriously. The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

OK so let's hear your solution - and I swear to all that is holy you'd better not just say "mental health blah blah blah." Most people with mental illness are not violent, and I have yet to see any credible reporting that most of the mass murdering shooters committed these violent acts due to mental illness. They seem evil, not sick. So let's hear your solutions, eh?

This was written in response to what should we do to address the "gun violence" problem:

If by "gun violence problem" you mean the actual gun violence problem (see: Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc), they need to:
- stop the revolving door of justice and keep violent people in prison for their full terms, until they age out of it
- stop the drug war (which goes hand-in-hand with 1st point)

If by "gun violence problem" you mean "school shootings" or "mass shootings" (to exclude terrorism-related mass shootings):
- Feds should investigate and release what medications prior shooters were on or had recently stopped taking
- release this information publicly
- should kinda sort itself out after that, but also limit pharmaceutical advertisements on TV, so the networks aren't disincentivized from actually reporting this

We don't have a gun problem in the big cities. We have a gang problem and a drug problem. Would you rather they use acid or knives like they do in the UK? Google how many acid attacks happen each year in London. I think it was 500 last year. Nobody is going to carry acid for self-defense, but decent, law-abiding people should be able carry a gun they know how to use.

Even still, the "gun problem" in the US isn't that big. Most gun deaths are suicides. Then come drug homicides, and things like people being killed by the police or victims. Mass shootings are minuscule in comparison, but they get all the attention because if it bleeds it leads. Most non-suicide gun homicides in the US occur in a handful of cities, and within a handful of neighborhoods in those cities. Just cleaning up a few city blocks in a few places would have a greater impact than any kind of feel-good legislation. But the lives saved wouldn't be white, so people don't seem to care so much. So yeah, there's that.

So much inaccurate information, it makes my head spin.

Again not every mass shooter was on any kind of psychotropic drugs. Drugs poem do not make person into a mass murderer. Mental health alone does not make a person into a mass murder.



The places with the highest rate of gun murder is places without any kind of restriction on gun purchases. Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana have the highest gun muder rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

OK so let's hear your solution - and I swear to all that is holy you'd better not just say "mental health blah blah blah." Most people with mental illness are not violent, and I have yet to see any credible reporting that most of the mass murdering shooters committed these violent acts due to mental illness. They seem evil, not sick. So let's hear your solutions, eh?

This was written in response to what should we do to address the "gun violence" problem:

If by "gun violence problem" you mean the actual gun violence problem (see: Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc), they need to:
- stop the revolving door of justice and keep violent people in prison for their full terms, until they age out of it
- stop the drug war (which goes hand-in-hand with 1st point)

If by "gun violence problem" you mean "school shootings" or "mass shootings" (to exclude terrorism-related mass shootings):
- Feds should investigate and release what medications prior shooters were on or had recently stopped taking
- release this information publicly
- should kinda sort itself out after that, but also limit pharmaceutical advertisements on TV, so the networks aren't disincentivized from actually reporting this

We don't have a gun problem in the big cities. We have a gang problem and a drug problem. Would you rather they use acid or knives like they do in the UK? Google how many acid attacks happen each year in London. I think it was 500 last year. Nobody is going to carry acid for self-defense, but decent, law-abiding people should be able carry a gun they know how to use.

Even still, the "gun problem" in the US isn't that big. Most gun deaths are suicides. Then come drug homicides, and things like people being killed by the police or victims. Mass shootings are minuscule in comparison, but they get all the attention because if it bleeds it leads. Most non-suicide gun homicides in the US occur in a handful of cities, and within a handful of neighborhoods in those cities. Just cleaning up a few city blocks in a few places would have a greater impact than any kind of feel-good legislation. But the lives saved wouldn't be white, so people don't seem to care so much. So yeah, there's that.

So much inaccurate information, it makes my head spin.

Again not every mass shooter was on any kind of psychotropic drugs. Drugs poem do not make person into a mass murderer. Mental health alone does not make a person into a mass murder.



The places with the highest rate of gun murder is places without any kind of restriction on gun purchases. Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana have the highest gun muder rate.

Site your sources please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

You how I know you didn't google it?

The guy's name was Abner Schoenwetter, and he imported some lobsters from Honduras, some of which were measured to be "too short". He was convicted of violating the Lacey Act which required him to follow Honduran law, and imprisoned. And yet Honduras filed an amicus brief disavowing the very law he was convicted on. He spent six and a half years in federal prison because a bureaucrat wanted to show who was boss.

Now tell me how a rifle with a 15.9" barrel is so much more deadly than a rifle with a 16" barrel that mere possession is a felony. Or why scary looking guns are more dangerous than non-scary looking guns that function identically.

The law is about drawing red lines. That's just inherent in the law. Sentencing can be more flexible.

PS the AR 15 is demonstrably more dangerous than other guns. They were designed to kill many people quickly in combat. Any gun that can be used to manu people quickly should be banned. You can keep your 1791 muskets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/02/15/4-basic-questions-about-the-ar-15/

I'm sure the gun experts at the Washington Post covered all the bases there about guns, but if we can keep our muskets does that mean the print version of their paper is the only protected speech anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

But should someone go to prison for that? Should they be taken away from their loved ones for that?

For wildlife poaching? Yes, yes they should. Do you not consider poaching to be a big deal? Are you not at all concerned about species becoming extinct? What deterrents would you suggest for those who are depleting our natural resources?

They aren't hurting anyone more than DACA kids are hurting people and just like they shouldn't be deported and taken away from their families for arbitrary laws people shouldn't be taken away from their families for the wrong sized lobster.

I work in animal welfare so obviously your clever rhetorical turns aren't just abstract fun and games to me.

Yes, crimes against animals should be taken seriously. The end.

Crimes against animals baha! Your head is so far up your own ass it's amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

If they only looked scary, no one would care.

And yet, that's what it boils down to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

OK so let's hear your solution - and I swear to all that is holy you'd better not just say "mental health blah blah blah." Most people with mental illness are not violent, and I have yet to see any credible reporting that most of the mass murdering shooters committed these violent acts due to mental illness. They seem evil, not sick. So let's hear your solutions, eh?

This was written in response to what should we do to address the "gun violence" problem:

If by "gun violence problem" you mean the actual gun violence problem (see: Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc), they need to:
- stop the revolving door of justice and keep violent people in prison for their full terms, until they age out of it
- stop the drug war (which goes hand-in-hand with 1st point)

If by "gun violence problem" you mean "school shootings" or "mass shootings" (to exclude terrorism-related mass shootings):
- Feds should investigate and release what medications prior shooters were on or had recently stopped taking
- release this information publicly
- should kinda sort itself out after that, but also limit pharmaceutical advertisements on TV, so the networks aren't disincentivized from actually reporting this

We don't have a gun problem in the big cities. We have a gang problem and a drug problem. Would you rather they use acid or knives like they do in the UK? Google how many acid attacks happen each year in London. I think it was 500 last year. Nobody is going to carry acid for self-defense, but decent, law-abiding people should be able carry a gun they know how to use.

Even still, the "gun problem" in the US isn't that big. Most gun deaths are suicides. Then come drug homicides, and things like people being killed by the police or victims. Mass shootings are minuscule in comparison, but they get all the attention because if it bleeds it leads. Most non-suicide gun homicides in the US occur in a handful of cities, and within a handful of neighborhoods in those cities. Just cleaning up a few city blocks in a few places would have a greater impact than any kind of feel-good legislation. But the lives saved wouldn't be white, so people don't seem to care so much. So yeah, there's that.

So much inaccurate information, it makes my head spin.

Again not every mass shooter was on any kind of psychotropic drugs. Drugs poem do not make person into a mass murderer. Mental health alone does not make a person into a mass murder.



The places with the highest rate of gun murder is places without any kind of restriction on gun purchases. Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana have the highest gun muder rate.

Yeah, sometimes they're on Islam. Tell me, which ones weren't on the drugs (or recently off of them)? Florida shooter's aunt said he was on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some laws make sense. Like, "Don't take other peoples' stuff."

Others make no sense, like "You should go to prison if your lobster is half an inch too short." (google it)

Telling people they can't have guns that look scary falls into the second category.

A rule like this makes sense if you understand that harvesting Lobsters before they have had a chance to procreate will leave the ocean without lobsters. So ya, it makes sense.

You how I know you didn't google it?

The guy's name was Abner Schoenwetter, and he imported some lobsters from Honduras, some of which were measured to be "too short". He was convicted of violating the Lacey Act which required him to follow Honduran law, and imprisoned. And yet Honduras filed an amicus brief disavowing the very law he was convicted on. He spent six and a half years in federal prison because a bureaucrat wanted to show who was boss.

Now tell me how a rifle with a 15.9" barrel is so much more deadly than a rifle with a 16" barrel that mere possession is a felony. Or why scary looking guns are more dangerous than non-scary looking guns that function identically.

The law is about drawing red lines. That's just inherent in the law. Sentencing can be more flexible.

PS the AR 15 is demonstrably more dangerous than other guns. They were designed to kill many people quickly in combat. Any gun that can be used to manu people quickly should be banned. You can keep your 1791 muskets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/02/15/4-basic-questions-about-the-ar-15/

I'm sure the gun experts at the Washington Post covered all the bases there about guns, but if we can keep our muskets does that mean the print version of their paper is the only protected speech anymore?

The answer to that is yes. These people want to give officials the right to enter homes and remove all guns. They want only one political party to exist in America. They probably also only want one news source that agrees with their line of thinking- alot like the people who only listen to Fox News that they claim to hate.