47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

5 shot at gun shows

It's not the guns that need to be regulated. Stupidity needs to be regulated.

Strengthen the penalties for commiting a violent crime with the use of a firearm. If it's a crime you get 10 years for and you use a gun to do it, double the amount of time, give them 20 years instead.

Then, those who are responsible gun owners keep their guns, the criminals that will get them whether they're legal or not will be held accountable.

Problem solved.

reply to post by HopSkipJump

if only it were that simple.
we already have 10-20-Life provisions here, along with 6 million gun owners.
still, the criminal element survives, armed with guns they are supposedly prevented from obtaining

so, your answer is what ?
make it more difficult for the other 2 million to defend themselves if they choose such ?
where is the logic in that ?

reply to post by Honor93


What is the saying? Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results is bat# crazy. Or something like that.

reply to post by TKDRL

yeah i'm there but i'm bored too.
this is one fight that is always worth the effort tho ... even if it only saves one life !!!!

reply to post by TrueAmerican


awesome, now how long until the first "accident" happens at half of these events to "prove" we shouldnt have guns, heh cant wait, gonna get some popcorn and watch on tv, id love to go hold a sign and support those that do want guns.


but im too scared,

i just dont want to be shot by cia, nsa, fbi, undecover swat, atf, homeland security ahh well hell anyone who works for the government and wants to push this agenda really lol. same thing with the accidents at the guns shows this past week, lol.

reply to post by Honor93


"armed with guns they are supposedly prevented from obtaining "

either they are really smart, or can see the future, someones tipping them off when guns go to get destroyed...

oh wait the names are eric holder, barack hussein obama and the agency meant to stop it in the first place, ATF.

this crap has been going on since the 70's. give the guns back to gang bangers, gang bangers kill themselves. win win. now its just gone over the boarder.
(so what if a mommy and some kids get killed along the way)

reply to post by T4NG0


nice


--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Indigo5

 

no, because they were 'legal' purchases by a private citizen.
if you want to keep felons out of the gun shows, stop them at the door

this idiot broke the laws by selling them and to an undercover operative at that.

we will NEVER keep guns out of the hands of those who want them, criminal or not ... why won't ppl grasp this concept ?

The liberals are surrounded by a reality distortion field.
Of course our solutions wil not work but so what? Lets just do gun control anyway!

BTW, did you notice the NYPD laughing at the new gun law in New York?
Cuomo didn't think things through.
No surprise. They never do.

Originally posted by Honor93

so, are you oblivious to the actions of Eric Holder or just pretending ???

I have never learned anything from a poster who uses long strings of emoticons in place of reasoned argument. Not interested...peace.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HopSkipJump

 

if only it were that simple.
we already have 10-20-Life provisions here, along with 6 million gun owners.
still, the criminal element survives, armed with guns they are supposedly prevented from obtaining

so, your answer is what ?
make it more difficult for the other 2 million to defend themselves if they choose such ?
where is the logic in that ?

edit on 21-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt

In this case, an ounce of prevention is not worth a pound of cure. When they are caught doing an illegal act AND have a gun (just like I said in the post but you ignored), then we double the sentence. If that doesn't work, we triple the sentence. Get it to the point that if they are going to commit a crime, they don't do it with a gun because they KNOW they will get 2 or 3 times more punishment just for having the gun while doing it.
Then, those who are gun owners and not criminals keep their guns, the criminals don't seek guns and the problem is solved.
Pay attention.

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HopSkipJump

 

if only it were that simple.
we already have 10-20-Life provisions here, along with 6 million gun owners.
still, the criminal element survives, armed with guns they are supposedly prevented from obtaining

so, your answer is what ?
make it more difficult for the other 2 million to defend themselves if they choose such ?
where is the logic in that ?

edit on 21-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt

In this case, an ounce of prevention is not worth a pound of cure. When they are caught doing an illegal act AND have a gun (just like I said in the post but you ignored), then we double the sentence. If that doesn't work, we triple the sentence. Get it to the point that if they are going to commit a crime, they don't do it with a gun because they KNOW they will get 2 or 3 times more punishment just for having the gun while doing it.
Then, those who are gun owners and not criminals keep their guns, the criminals don't seek guns and the problem is solved.
Pay attention.

Don't take this the wrong way, but if criminals don't care about laws, now, what makes you think they would start caring if the laws were more strict?

The mindset of the criminal is that they think they are smarter than the cops. And when they DO get caught, they blame something besides themselves, and then get "smarter" while incarcerated. i.e. learn what not to do next time...If criminals feared jail, they wouldn't commit crimes!
But to them, doing time, is a status symbol. So, increased sentences would just make them MORE likely to: kill witnesses, kill cops, kill judges, etc...They will just be criminals that try harder not to get caught, by using the system to their benefit! Do you get the point?

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Don't take this the wrong way, but if criminals don't care about laws, now, what makes you think they would start caring if the laws were more strict?

The mindset of the criminal is that they think they are smarter than the cops. And when they DO get caught, they blame something besides themselves, and then get "smarter" while incarcerated. i.e. learn what not to do next time...If criminals feared jail, they wouldn't commit crimes!
But to them, doing time, is a status symbol. So, increased sentences would just make them MORE likely to: kill witnesses, kill cops, kill judges, etc...They will just be criminals that try harder not to get caught, by using the system to their benefit! Do you get the point?

If they commit a crime and use a gun, there won't be a "next time". Ensure they don't get out. It won't stop crime, but it'll prevent them from using guns to commit them and guns won't be the focus of the people that are blaming them for the criminals.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Honor93

so, are you oblivious to the actions of Eric Holder or just pretending ???

I have never learned anything from a poster who uses long strings of emoticons in place of reasoned argument. Not interested...peace.

The overuse of emoticons is a tell tale sign of diminished capacity to participate in cordial discourse. Of course everyone is entitled to one or two usages of the overuse of the emoticon. But it's easy to spot the posters who resort to it more often. They're usually the ones telling you that you are the crazy one. It's called "the bubble".

Trend on this thread is to say the liberals are the problem and only the liberals. When this complex issue is clearly a failing of both ideologies

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Agree...By the time a criminal has opted to commit a crime that involves a gun, they have already weighed, accepted or ceased to care about this risk. A gang member is not going to be dissauded by a stiffer penalty if he shoots a rival gang member vs. stabs him to death.

As we have discussed, right now the vast majority of guns used in crime orignate with straw purchases inside the USA. I think legislation aimed at cracking down on that, while being careful not to infringe on the rights of legal gun collectors is the best place to start to ebb the flow of guns to criminals.

I found this law passed by New Hampshire back in 2009 called HCR-0006, It might help if you send it to your state congressmen to help draft your own respective state laws. This is very well written and precise, plus it covers everything. Here is the law: www.gencourt.state.nh.us...

2nd amendment poll


Interesting vote of over half a million votes.

Bill

reply to post by bknapple32


and blah blah blah - so how about answering the question?

What about Eric Holder / Fast and Furious incident? Do you feel it is acceptable that while the government dictates, but does not follow its own rules.

Did anyone just see Kerry`s speach on being Sec. of State? Was I hearing things, he was talking about the New World Order, The U.S. being the Global leader, what is up here, and then right after that They march out the people to try and push the gun control measures through. Could they be any clearer in their intent. If you haven`t watched the speach watch it and you will see what I am talking about. I don`t know about all of you but I did not sign up for this, and our freedoms mean everything to me. It is time to look deeply into what is happening here and question everything. This is not my idea of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


What is it like to live your life in cowardly fear?

We can't have guns here, do not let your gov do the same! trust me we're overpopulated nooow noooo >