Absolutely not. We must have laws but that doesn't mean the things we come up with are always appropriate for all eternity.
In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
'Tyranny' means a law you don't like?
Nuts are nuts agree. And of course guns should be taken from criminals. The police need to get very aggressive with gangs, very. That would eliminate 95% of gun violence or more.
Well, let's say you had 10 guns and my new law limited you to 5. If you didn't do anything, you'd be in possession of illegal weapons. If you played your cards right, probably no one would ever know.
But, you would be breaking the law and you wouldn't want to get caught because my punishment for illegal weapons wouldn't be all warm and fuzzy.
So your plan would be to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens? That's genius Theo.
You really hate guns. 😂
You don't have to fill out paperwork when you buy a gun from a non-licensed dealer. Used gun sales between private owners for example.
The NAZI's had the gun policy you prefer fwiw.
Then what's the point of the limitation?
Why not implement the punishment first and see what happens? Perhaps the fact the federal government kicks 90 percent of gun law violations is part of the reason criminals don't follow the law.But, you would be breaking the law and you wouldn't want to get caught because my punishment for illegal weapons wouldn't be all warm and fuzzy.
Socrates believed all laws should be followed, even unjust ones.
He was wrong too, but at least you're in good company.
The limitation is an effort to reduce the massive number of firearms in circulation.
I'm not sure what you mean.
So you have a deep abiding respect for all the laws you like?
Just like with all the other laws.....you would only be a criminal when you made the decision to break the law.
I think most people, at least subconsciously, think gang-on-gang shootings are a public service.
You said in the same sentence you most likely won't get caught if you retain illegal weapons.
The government prosecutes approximately 10% of reported violations.
I'm not falling for this trap.
Even the military expects you not to follow unlawful orders.
I'd imagine a lot of laws are like that. What percentage of speeders get ticketed?
The government clearly needs to do a better job.
lol the purpose of speeding tickets is revenue generation.
Then why not start there?
There is no legal way to take legally owned firearms out of circulation, that ship has sailed, that horse has fled the barn, etc.
I was asked how to handle people's guns if I got to make the law.
oh. Well, that makes all the difference.
Except for the part where it's unconstitutional.
I think it would be interesting to find out if an amendment in the bill of rights can be changed.
Taking the 3rd amendment, an amendment that was extremely important in 1776 but not so much now.
OMG......don't you know every single piece of the constitution is perfect for all eternity? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers got all that stuff straight from God.
Is it not causing any problems because it's unnecessary or because it's effective?
Well we can't actually ignore it because innocents get caught in the crossfire. If they only killed other gangmembers, that would be different.
This. Speaking firsthand, we don't enforce the laws that we have.
so then you agree with me. you do know that chasing your tail isnt going to work right?
Try again. These new "criminals" didn't change. The law did. You took law-abiding citizens and made them criminals.
YOU would have made the decision to make them criminals.
This is easily the dumbest thing you've ever posted.
Speeding is a violation, not even a misdemeanor. Illegal possession of a firearm is almost always a felony. All such federal charges are a felony.
Stop being so obtuse and disingenuous.
Unfortunately they have horrible aim and tend to shoot innocent people and their property more often than not.
Obviously, at least to clear-headed people, we're not going to start kicking doors down the first day the new law goes into effect.
You would be the one making the decision to follow the law or not.
If you're driving 65 in a 65 and we put up new 55 signs, you're going to need to slow down.
Not in Alabama.
If I were to write a speeding ticket, my agency would retain less than $4 of that fine. That doesn't cover the cost of my time, the district courts time or the Circuit Clerks time to collect your fine.
The state itself would profit but yea, I'm not writing tickets so that the state can make a profit.
If you break the law, any law, you are a lawbreaker. That is true 100% of the time, right?
You're still making the decision to make these otherwise law-abiding people criminals. Not just criminals...but rather felons. They didn't change. The law would have changed.
Stop with the comparison to speeding. That's not an apples to apples comparison. Speeding is a violation. It's not in the same category of criminal offenses. In Alabama, traffic infractions are a title 32 offense whereas criminal offenses are title 13. They aren't the same. You're entirely ignorant on the subject.
And who won't be kicking doors down on day 1? You? When we decide to start kicking them down, will you be joining us?
I just thank God there are damn few people who think like you do. What a freaking disaster you would create.
No. And I don't actually know where to begin to alleviate you of your ignorance.
In Florida general traffic infractions are non-criminal violations as well (same in every state). Speeding of 30mph over posted limit can become a misdemeanor criminal offense. DUI, hit and run with injuries or certain property damage can also become a criminal offense.
But no...failure to use your blinker or 12mph over the limit is NOT a criminal offense.
We're all responsible for following the law....even the ones we don't like. If you choose to be a criminal, don't blame anyone but yourself.
I was referring to the jack-booted thugs kicking doors down. You know, the ones the gun companies warned you about.
But non-criminal violations are still breaking the law, no?
You think making currently lawful behavior unlawful, felonious in fact, is a great idea. I think it's incredibly irresponsible, un-American and stupid.
I think we're done on this tangent.
Civil offense vs criminal offense you troll. 😂
But by all means, keep comparing a speeding ticket to federal felonious possession of a firearm...because that makes perfect sense. You're only advertising your ignorance.
Because it's not harming anyone and, if things TRULY went to hell, could still protect Americans from governmental overreach.
Ignoring the actual criminals and trying to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals.
Meanwhile, @goldmom tells us that myself and Russell are the paid trolls here, not this guy.
We have the worst ones on the internet.
Yes, we are changing a law to place limits where there were no limits before.
Maybe try to think of it in a scenario that doesn't involve guns. Then you can think about it more clearly.
