You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The O'Reilly Factor
- Thread starter bestdefense357
- Start date
The intent to punish criminals is good. However, with 20,000 or so gun laws on the books, if every offender were punished, most of us would be in jail or prison.
We need to re-establish our rights.
We need to recognize defense of ourselves, loved ones, property, and innocent people is a God-given or "natural" right - not subject to government restriction or modification.
We need to offer training to those who would participate in such moral behavior so they react properly.
Then we need to prosecute those people who *initiate* violence and pin medals on those who stop violence.
That, to me, is part of what the Second Amendment guarantees.
We need to re-establish our rights.
We need to recognize defense of ourselves, loved ones, property, and innocent people is a God-given or "natural" right - not subject to government restriction or modification.
We need to offer training to those who would participate in such moral behavior so they react properly.
Then we need to prosecute those people who *initiate* violence and pin medals on those who stop violence.
That, to me, is part of what the Second Amendment guarantees.
If the government was truly committed to stopping gun violence, it would immediately set up gun courts and prosecute every single crime that involved a firearm as a terrorist act. Why? Because using a gun to break the law does terrorize the victims in a way that is unforgettable. Even if the gun is never fired, the psychological impact of knowing you were a heartbeat away from death is tremendous and stays with you forever.
Ah. I see. Strangulation, bat-crushed skull, meat cleaver cuts, high fall, acid, pummelling, electrocution, drowning, poison, hit-and-run, explosion, etc. etc. etc. do not "terrorize the victims" and do not have "the psychological impact" of a gun. Bull$#!%. Tell that to my friends who have faced death by drowning, cutting, or beating; they'll slap you and insist that it wasn't the tool that was so fearful, it was the prospect of death regardless of instrument thereof.
The one thing that the National Rifle Association and gun control advocates agree on is stricter law enforcement for gun crimes. So where is the legislation? Nowhere, that's where.
The author demonstrates profound ignorance. There are PLENTY (thousands) of gun laws: they are, however, not enforced. The NICS system instantly and specifically alerts the FBI to tens/hundreds of thousands of gun felonies - yet prosecution is virtually nonexistant. The problem is not lack of laws, the problem is lack of enforcement. The government is not interested in prosecuting criminals, it is interested in controlling the law-abiding.
Ah. I see. Strangulation, bat-crushed skull, meat cleaver cuts, high fall, acid, pummelling, electrocution, drowning, poison, hit-and-run, explosion, etc. etc. etc. do not "terrorize the victims" and do not have "the psychological impact" of a gun. Bull$#!%. Tell that to my friends who have faced death by drowning, cutting, or beating; they'll slap you and insist that it wasn't the tool that was so fearful, it was the prospect of death regardless of instrument thereof.
The one thing that the National Rifle Association and gun control advocates agree on is stricter law enforcement for gun crimes. So where is the legislation? Nowhere, that's where.
The author demonstrates profound ignorance. There are PLENTY (thousands) of gun laws: they are, however, not enforced. The NICS system instantly and specifically alerts the FBI to tens/hundreds of thousands of gun felonies - yet prosecution is virtually nonexistant. The problem is not lack of laws, the problem is lack of enforcement. The government is not interested in prosecuting criminals, it is interested in controlling the law-abiding.
Draconian gun laws of any type, including extra laws that heap on more punishment for using a gun in a crime or being a prohibited person with a gun, scare me. Has "zero tolerance" helped reduced the use of illicit drugs or drunk driving? The answer is no. Such laws, as they are enacted to supposedly protect the law-abiding will, eventually, in my opinion, be used against the law-abiding.
The unfortunate reality of violent crime in the U.S. is that it is driven by substance abuse and addiction. Since the 1960s, a "party culture" has flourished in the this country that has led many people into the recreational use of alcohol and drugs. Inevitably, while under the influence, personal and social disasters ensue. According to reports I've read, something like 80% of people in prison did their crime while under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Yet, do we treat the substance abuse for what it is--a health problem? No, we spend most of available public funds on more prisons and jailers while largely ignoring the treatment question. Meanwhile, people continue to drink and drug as if there were no tomorrow. Well, there is a tomorrow, and it is a totalitarian state if we do not treat the users of alcohol and drugs so that they do not end up doing something stupidly and desperately criminal.
By the way, treatment does work and the rate of backsliding into the old habits is less than simply sending someone off to prison for mere possession or intoxication.
We all agree here that guns are not the problem. The problem is the weak-willed ninnies who pass themselves off a human beings.
The unfortunate reality of violent crime in the U.S. is that it is driven by substance abuse and addiction. Since the 1960s, a "party culture" has flourished in the this country that has led many people into the recreational use of alcohol and drugs. Inevitably, while under the influence, personal and social disasters ensue. According to reports I've read, something like 80% of people in prison did their crime while under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
Yet, do we treat the substance abuse for what it is--a health problem? No, we spend most of available public funds on more prisons and jailers while largely ignoring the treatment question. Meanwhile, people continue to drink and drug as if there were no tomorrow. Well, there is a tomorrow, and it is a totalitarian state if we do not treat the users of alcohol and drugs so that they do not end up doing something stupidly and desperately criminal.
By the way, treatment does work and the rate of backsliding into the old habits is less than simply sending someone off to prison for mere possession or intoxication.
We all agree here that guns are not the problem. The problem is the weak-willed ninnies who pass themselves off a human beings.