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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Yup, kid was troubled and all sorts of warning signs.

Yes, social services and FBI shoulda/coulda done more to intervene.

Agree, we need to better treat and address mental illness.

[b]We still need sensible gun laws.[/b] Period. Stop deflecting.[/quote]
Ok, what specific sensible gun law would have prevented this shooting?  Before suggesting banning the AR-15 or standard capacity magazines, remember that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with a 15-round 9mm pistol and a 10-round .22 caliber pistol.  And that a waiting period and a one-gun-a-month law didn't stop him.[/quote]

Then let’s eliminate personal gun ownership without a license and licensing requires an extensive waiting period, a comprehensive background check, and registration.

Make it harder to buy a gun then let’s say, get a drivers license or adopt a pet at the local Humane  Society.  And yes, no more assault rifles. But you don’t like that answer, do you?

Clinging to your guns ..... Americans are such spineless, selfish cowards. Your guns make you feel safe and yet they actually make it more dangerous for everyone.[/quote]
Some of your suggestions would literally require an amendment to the constitution.  Waiting periods don't do anything - the sure didn't for the Florida shooter.  Neither did having his guns - like every gun purchased in a gun store - in a registry.  And "comprehensive background checks" are great, until someone just gets their cousin, friend or baby daddy to bypass them (this is how most criminals get their guns btw). In reality, it's just an inconvenience for decent folk, and not an impediment to bad people.  It would be like having sober people take a breathalyzer before starting their car.

Back to registrations for a moment - I assume the point would be to make sure criminals and crazies don't have guns, right?  The only problem with that is that it's unconstitutional to have criminals and crazies register their guns. That pesky 5th Amendment prevents the government from forcing people to testify against themselves. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

So the only people you can't force to register their guns are the ones you should be concerned about. So again, what's the point of that?[/quote]

you convinced me! so the only solution is comprehensive Australia-style reforms. [/quote]
And you're just one constitutional amendment away from that being possible.  Get to work![/quote]

These questions are far from settled constitutionally. [/quote]

The Framers didn't contemplate assault weapons.  The Constitution can change with the times.  For example, women have the right to vote now.[/quote]
At the time of the constitution, there were private warships, and the first machine gun was invented before the Revolutionary War - the Puckle Gun. I think it was even offered to the Colonialists (and maybe the British too).  So they Founding Fathers weren't oblivious to advances in weapons of war. They saw it during their war.  But if someone brought an AR-15 to them, I doubt they'd say "Oh gee, we can't have our citizens bringing these with them to the battlefields, we'd repel the Redcoats far too effectively."

Do you think the framers contemplated the internet, btw?  Asking for a friend.

[/quote]

so it’s a living constitution that anticipates that the framers anticipated historical changes? In that case, Congress can now interpret the Commerce Clause to conduct Australia-style comprehensive reforms. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics