My solution for gun violence and gun rights

a reply to: Metallicus

If people's punishments were exactly what they did to someone else, there might be a change in violant crimes.

Eye for an eye and all...

a reply to: NewzNose
LOL Indeed but if you read the next verse...

Matthew 5:38:39
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Flatfish

Why shouldn't there be an opt-out?

Its obvious there are at least 2 distinct cultures in the US. Those that value freedom and those that don't. If a person wants to amend the Constitution to prohibit individual citizen ownership of firearms, let them live in a country where people can't own firearms. But don't impose that restriction of freedom on everyone.

It always amazes me how some feel somehow authorized to impose tyranny on others.

For the very same reason we don't let states opt in or out of slavery.

a reply to: Flatfish

Yea, that makes a lot of sense.
So.......those who wish to live free get to be enslaved by those who want to change the Constitution.

Sort of reduces "citizenship" to a hostage taking.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: smirkley

Well, considering I don't agree with a death penalty this solution doesn't sound very good to me. Murder is murder and how it is done and for what reason shouldn't affect the sentence.

And dead is dead, whether with a gun, a knife, a hammer, a rock, or a pressure cooker.

The problem is killing and violence. Prosecute to the full extent of the law the crime, not the weapon.

How about we GET RID of admiralty law?
anticorruptionsociety.com...-10706

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Flatfish

Yea, that makes a lot of sense.
So.......those who wish to live free get to be enslaved by those who want to change the Constitution.

Sort of reduces "citizenship" to a hostage taking.

Yeah I know what you mean.

I'm thinking there was another fairly large group of people who also wanted to live free at the very time the Constitution was being written?

As it turned out, they had to wait for a war to get their freedom.

Why have a Constitution at all if we're going to allow states to pick and choose which parts their going to recognize?

That's kinda like pissing straight into the wind if you ask me.

a reply to: diogeneese33

I am extremely pro second.

My idea doesn't attack guns, it attacks those who use them to commit crimes.

I thought that it was pretty obvious.

I agree that hardcore criminals (the ones we are referring to in this thread) are not deterred by the law and the punishments associated with it.

I have dealt with too many gang members that recidivate to believe rehabilitation works for them more than it doesn't.

Of course, if you believe the system doesn't rehabilitate properly then you won't agree with me, and maybe you're right.

When I see success with a rehabilitation program for people that have no remorse after unintentionally killing a child during a gang shooting, only then will I reevaluate my views on rehabilitation being a viable option to deal with such issues.

Until then, I believe incarceration is the only logical way to treat violent criminals.

If gang member John Smith commits a drive by and injuries his rival he's locked away for a minimum of 25 years. While he is locked away he will not have the opportunity to murder someone with a gun.

As for a "solution" to mass shooting incidents, I think we need to address our broken mental health system.

Something else I am all too familiar with. However, that is a whole other topic.

All this violence was caused by Government.

I say, Any Government official, that has been deemed, in Violation of The People, Should Be Executed

We should Start Today

Washington is over due for a Cleansing Enema

Sorry about taking so long to reply back. Broken cars and such.

First, my post specifically addresses gun violence. Not pillows and knives, etc.

I knew this wasnt going to be popular. But I feel it is worthy of discussion.

One problem we face here in the US is the vast number of guns in the wrong hands. Criminals, gangs, and generally the bad people. I doubt anyone disagrees with that. If guns could no longer be sold in America, it would take a century or longer to vet out all the existing guns legal and otherwise.

I believe in gun rights. For those that do not have felonies of course.

But amending gun rights and laws to me isnt the answer. Criminal dont care.

What criminals do care about is death. They dont like it. Who does.

I know this wont work out too well in crimes of passion. But sooner or lateer the hardcore killers will either be reduced, or they may pause before pulling the trigger.

No, not a popular thread. Nor a popular idea. But why regulate the legal law abiders, when they arent the problem.

Now to read some of the other responces.

And thank you for the opinions. They count.

You guys forget that sometimes a fully justified killing by firearm is judged inappropriately as murder.

Husband shoots a burglar who came into the home and was trying to kill the wife, except the burglar was a 15 year old.

A famous 15 year old with politically connected parents. Death penalty? I hardly think so.

a reply to: Flatfish

I''m not suggesting that states be allowed to pick and chose individual parts.

What I'm expecting quite frankly is that there's going to be a movement to amend the Constitution in several ways to redefine or narrow the so-called Bill of Rights. I don't know if this will result in a Constitutional Convention or not, but.....what I am suggesting is that if there is one and a number of States as fastened to the Union under the old Constitution decide that they don't want to subscribe to a Union as formulated under the newly minted as amended Constitution, they should be allowed to opt out of joining the New Union of States and that would be accomplished by popular vote in the individual States.

a reply to: TonyS

Yeah, the democratic process does pretty much amount to 51% taking the other 49% hostage in a twisted way of viewing it.

My twisted and skewed way....

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

The real distinction between gun violence and violence through the use of other weapons is the projection of potentially lethal force over greater distances and the fact that it is too late to change one's mind after pulling the trigger.

People fear these types of force the same way a dog or other animal fears a person wielding a stick, almost an instinctive thing left over from when we were shrews or some other similar creature it seems.

Eeek, eek,eek,eek, Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek.

Tools are tools.

It is how it is used that makes the tool a weapon.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Flatfish

I''m not suggesting that states be allowed to pick and chose individual parts.

What I'm expecting quite frankly is that there's going to be a movement to amend the Constitution in several ways to redefine or narrow the so-called Bill of Rights. I don't know if this will result in a Constitutional Convention or not, but.....what I am suggesting is that if there is one and a number of States as fastened to the Union under the old Constitution decide that they don't want to subscribe to a Union as formulated under the newly minted as amended Constitution, they should be allowed to opt out of joining the New Union of States and that would be accomplished by popular vote in the individual States.

So, you're a secessionist.

Tell me, how did that work out for the last group who attempted it?

Look, the Constitution has been amended 27 times and whether you like it or not, eventually it will be amended again.

Nothing is perfect.

Knowing this truth is what guided our founding fathers to create a foundational document intentionally designed to allow for "changes" or "Amendments" to be adopted through a process stipulated in the document itself.

It's basically a living document designed to change with the times in order to maintain our ongoing quest for "a more perfect union."

I suspect that the next thing you'll be asking for is the removal of the words "One Nation" & "Indivisible" from our pledge of allegiance, or do you even remember that part?

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: TonyS

Yeah, the democratic process does pretty much amount to 51% taking the other 49% hostage in a twisted way of viewing it.

My twisted and skewed way....

When and how has our Constitution ever been amended with a 51% majority?

That's not anywhere close to how it works!

Hell, we don't even elect our POTUS by simple majority.

Amending our Constitution is a long drawn out process, (regardless of which avenue is employed) and it takes an "overwhelming" majority to get it done.

If it gets amended against your will, I can confidently assure you that the percentage of Americans supporting your position is nowhere near 49%. That's a figment of your imagination.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: TonyS

Yeah, the democratic process does pretty much amount to 51% taking the other 49% hostage in a twisted way of viewing it.

My twisted and skewed way....

Yea and what makes this whole thing so increasingly unfair, especially to those of us who live in fly over country, is that the combination of the Liberal Democrat stranglehold on the Big City Political machines and the entirely corrupt, unaccountable electronic voting machines, means that the 49% have no effective voice whatsoever! And the result? We get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both hailing from what amounts to damn near "foriegn" jurisdictions, pushing Obamacare down the throats of people in Oklahoma, Texas, etc. We got NOTHING in common with anyone in California or the "Left" Coast; we don't need them ruling over us. Same is true as far as the East Coast is concerned.