Why Gun Control is Bullshit

[JoeB131]

[

If someone much bigger and stronger is raping your wife or daughter what do you do; kindly ask him to stop, or call the police make some coffee and wait in the other room for them to show up?

ooooh, the scary rape question.

Frankly, I couldn't imagine a rapist who is so dumb that he's got his pants around his ankles and letting the woman's husband run around loose.

but only in Gun-Fetishist land does this scenario happen.

Given lethal force is not an option for you Joe, what would you do in this situation?

Man shot during alleged rape attempt in Brighton - Action News 5 - Memphis, Tennessee

After being tied up, one of the girls was able to escape, and ran to the home of her next-door neighbor and cousin, Keith Ingram.

Ingram, carrying a gun, quickly went over to the sisters' residence. Ingram confronted Fleming while he was attacking the other girl, and shot the man once when he attempted to attack him.

Call the cops. That's their job.

 

[JoeB131]

We don't need "gun control", we need "thug control". Keep criminals locked up behind bars, and put the mentally insane in mental hospitals instead of pumping them full of drugs, and most of the problems with mass shootings will go away.

Our justice system is a sham. Violent criminals are often allowed to cut deals and do no prison time. Most "gun violence" is done by repeat offenders. We need to stop releasing prisoners just because a prison gets full, build another prison!

Guy, we lock more people than any other country in the world. We have 2 million in prison and 7 million on parole or probation. (By contrast, Communist China only locks up 1.5 million even though they have four times as many people.)

This insanity is that we just need to lock people up is part of the problem.

Meanwhile over in those liberal socialist countries- Japan only locks up 69,000 and Germany only locks up 78,000.

 

[PaulS1950]

JoeB131, you are so right, Like China we should just take those who commit crimes out and shoot them and only lock up those that disagree with the government.

Japan and Germany do not criminalize drug offenses and we do, that accounts for a large percentage of those incarcerated. (the 6% total of the population that is incarcerated)

Look at those jailed for violent offenses and compare those figures world wide.

 

[Bfgrn]

JoeB131, you are so right, Like China we should just take those who commit crimes out and shoot them and only lock up those that disagree with the government.

Japan and Germany do not criminalize drug offenses and we do, that accounts for a large percentage of those incarcerated. (the 6% total of the population that is incarcerated)

Look at those jailed for violent offenses and compare those figures world wide.

When I listen to you right wing executioners, I have to laugh that 'somehow' you folks try to pin fascism and communism on liberals.

You folks are hard core authoritarians.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[bigrebnc1775]

ooooh, the scary rape question.

Frankly, I couldn't imagine a rapist who is so dumb that he's got his pants around his ankles and letting the woman's husband run around loose.

but only in Gun-Fetishist land does this scenario happen.

Given lethal force is not an option for you Joe, what would you do in this situation?

Man shot during alleged rape attempt in Brighton - Action News 5 - Memphis, Tennessee

After being tied up, one of the girls was able to escape, and ran to the home of her next-door neighbor and cousin, Keith Ingram.

Ingram, carrying a gun, quickly went over to the sisters' residence. Ingram confronted Fleming while he was attacking the other girl, and shot the man once when he attempted to attack him.

Call the cops. That's their job.

Their job is too investigate, it is not to protect.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB131, you are so right, Like China we should just take those who commit crimes out and shoot them and only lock up those that disagree with the government.

Japan and Germany do not criminalize drug offenses and we do, that accounts for a large percentage of those incarcerated. (the 6% total of the population that is incarcerated)

Look at those jailed for violent offenses and compare those figures world wide.

Look, guy, I know that it's hard to explain shit to a Conservatard, because they've been brainwashing you for years...

But horseshit.

We have a higher crime rate because

1) We have too much wealth inequality.
2) We have too many fucking guns.
3) We have a prison industrial complex that profits from prisons.

It's really that fucking simple.

 

[Jarlaxle]

ooooh, the scary rape question.

Frankly, I couldn't imagine a rapist who is so dumb that he's got his pants around his ankles and letting the woman's husband run around loose.

but only in Gun-Fetishist land does this scenario happen.

Given lethal force is not an option for you Joe, what would you do in this situation?

Man shot during alleged rape attempt in Brighton - Action News 5 - Memphis, Tennessee

After being tied up, one of the girls was able to escape, and ran to the home of her next-door neighbor and cousin, Keith Ingram.

Ingram, carrying a gun, quickly went over to the sisters' residence. Ingram confronted Fleming while he was attacking the other girl, and shot the man once when he attempted to attack him.

Call the cops. That's their job.

No, stupid, it's not. Their job is to show up after the fact and try to catch the attacker. They have no obligation to actually protect anyone. (Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales)

 

[JoeB131]

[

No, stupid, it's not. Their job is to show up after the fact and try to catch the attacker. They have no obligation to actually protect anyone. (Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales)

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of police officers, but frankly, it's what I've come to expect from Conservatards these days.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[

No, stupid, it's not. Their job is to show up after the fact and try to catch the attacker. They have no obligation to actually protect anyone. (Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales)

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of police officers, but frankly, it's what I've come to expect from Conservatards these days.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

 

[JoeB131]

Cops put themselves out on the line every day protecting us from the scum who can get guns too easily because the NRA and their gun manufacturing masters have no class.

And Rubes like you run them down.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Cops put themselves out on the line every day protecting us from the scum who can get guns too easily because the NRA and their gun manufacturing masters have no class.

And Rubes like you run them down.

rubes like you only drop off when obama takes a healthy shit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Background checks are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, but the information needs to be current for them to be effective.

Really? When did the SCotUS rule on this?
How does restraining the exercise of a right until the state determies that said exercise does not violate the law not violate the constitution?

 

[Jarlaxle]

[

No, stupid, it's not. Their job is to show up after the fact and try to catch the attacker. They have no obligation to actually protect anyone. (Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales)

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of police officers, but frankly, it's what I've come to expect from Conservatards these days.

Not opinion, child, it's one of those pesky FACTS you loathe! The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect anyone.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Cops put themselves out on the line every day protecting us from the scum who can get guns too easily because the NRA and their gun manufacturing masters have no class.

And Rubes like you run them down.

Actually, cops don't have particularly dangerous jobs. Offhand, I am more likely to die on the job than a cop. That's another of those pesky FACTS, junior.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Background checks are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, but the information needs to be current for them to be effective.

Really? When did the SCotUS rule on this?
How does restraining the exercise of a right until the state determies that said exercise does not violate the law not violate the constitution?

I bought a 380 today took me all of 5 minutes, and that was including the back ground check. I guess the CCW helped. and the reason it took 5 minutes was the paper work I had to sign.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Background checks are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, but the information needs to be current for them to be effective.

Really? When did the SCotUS rule on this?
How does restraining the exercise of a right until the state determies that said exercise does not violate the law not violate the constitution?

Here:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Clearly a felon or someone mentally ill cannot be prohibited from possessing a firearm absent a background check.

Background checks are applied to everyone equally, they do not manifest an undue burden to obtaining a firearm, they’re rationally based, seek to realize a legitimate legislative end, are justified by documented evidence, and since the 4473s aren’t entered into a database, background checks do not pose a privacy rights violation threat, nor a threat concerning National firearms registration.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Background checks are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, but the information needs to be current for them to be effective.

Really? When did the SCotUS rule on this?
How does restraining the exercise of a right until the state determies that said exercise does not violate the law not violate the constitution?

Here:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Clearly a felon or someone mentally ill cannot be prohibited from possessing a firearm absent a background check.

Background checks were not considered by the court under Heller, and so to state that Heller ruled that background checls are constitutional is a lie.

This makes you a liar.

 

[Steelplate]

The fact of the matter is that if you want a gun to protect yourself against the government you are living a fantasy because the united states military is the most powerfull army ever. So really what are small arms going to do against the military. However i am not saying that gun control laws should be passed as i belive that we have a right to bear arms.

insurgent groups with crappier arms than US citizens have kept us bottled up in Afghanistan for over 10 years.

Yes...but they are people who know what REAL oppression and tyranny is all about, they are a hard people who live under a harsh culture and have been oppressed by warlords, the Taliban, and have endured TWO countries invading them....you fuckers are just spoiled little whiners.

 

[hazlnut]

It's mostly bs for one reason and that's because of the fact that most of the gun violence is within our inner-cities. It doesn't work.

The way you write, it seems like you went to an inner city school.

Am I right, homeboy?

 

[JoeB131]

[

No, stupid, it's not. Their job is to show up after the fact and try to catch the attacker. They have no obligation to actually protect anyone. (Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales)

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of police officers, but frankly, it's what I've come to expect from Conservatards these days.

Not opinion, child, it's one of those pesky FACTS you loathe! The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect anyone.

Facts are, cops go out every day dealing with the problems produced by the plutocrats and their greed. A lot of them are killed in the line of duty every year.

But don't let those facts stop you.

You just get angry they have good benefits and a union and you don't.