Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
aren't there already 1000 laws banning what these gangsters do in the first place?
the law only restrains law-abiding people.
|
More bullshit. When did an Obamaphile like you join the dimwitted NRA?
You've already argued in favor of 100% background checks with out loopholes and I believe you suggested strengthening punishments for straw purchases, you're contradicting yourself here. Criminals get their guns from the same places law-abiding citizens do, gun retailers and manufactures. Straw purchasing, theft, and out-right corruption are where guns hit the street. When we BAN assault weapons OUTRIGHT, the criminals by default lose access. "Law-abiding people" that is a crock of shit. The fundamental premise of gun-restrictions including background checks is to limit the flow to criminals from legitimate sources. Law-abiding citizens are rightfully restrained because such restraint further limits criminals.
After all, what do Americans really want, less crime or simply more opportunities to shoot and harm criminals vindictively? If we want less crime, we need to have less guns, period. Now if folks want to increase "stand-your-ground" and carrying permits well, that is an opposite proposal. That will only increase criminals appetite for destruction, and further arm and tool them for the task.
Law-abiding people who want public safety should make the communal sacrifice of certain
aspects of their Second Amendment rights. Universal Second Amendment rights by definition enable criminals. If we honestly want to restrict crime, we need to look in our mirrors in our own homes first. It is an entirely circular argument for a reason, because until we close the loop, guns will continue to cycle around our communities, often times ending up with the very people we all agree shouldn't have them. Its truly all or nothing here, and for the past 9 years we've had nothing.