03-29-2019, 01:10 AM
(03-28-2019, 11:54 PM)Benton Wrote: I'll agree with both. Although, the first doesn't matter as much. We've tweaked and tuned the Constitution; just because other countries put less stock in the ability to arm doesn't diminish their ability to minimize the impact of firearm ownership.
Putting less stock is a bit of an understatement. That being said it absolutely does diminish our ability to respond the way NZ did. This is exactly as the founders intended.
Quote:I got a flat tire on the way to work. I didn't change it because of the likelihood that the spare, too, would go flat. Instead I just ground it down to the rim and was amazed my situation didn't improve.
Come on, there's some wiggle room there. Grandfather in current owners, have standards for future owners, etc. Jumping to the "they're going to confiscate your stuff!!!" option doesn't help trying to reduce the problem in the future. Licensing and training is a basic step forward... but somebody has to take that step.
As far as who determines, that's a valid concern.
There would be some wiggle room, if there was some wiggle room. The anti-gun side will not stop with the next victory and they've shown this to be true more frequently of late. Any concession will be followed by a demand for another. Under these terms the pro gun ownership will give no ground and they logically should do exactly that.
Quote:I'll be honest, I'm a bit surprised here. I respect your opinion in terms of law enforcement a lot more than most, but there's not much credible evidence that long sentences deter crime. Any crime.
If you're going to rob a bank with a firearm or without a firearm, the 20 years for having it firearm enhanced probably matters little to nothing when you're already facing decades behind bars if you get caught. If you're going to murder someone, doing life plus 20 years for using a firearm probably isn't any more of a deterrent than doing life for killing them with a bat.
Firearm enhancements and lengthy sentences for violent crimes are already in the books.
I wish I could provide you with my daily proof of the lax enforcement of firearms laws in the state of CA. I'm not talking about already serious felonies such as bank robbery, I'm referring to robbery, assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm in conjunction with another crime such as burglary. Getting these people off the street for longer periods absolutely has an impact on future crime.
Quote:My concern is that if something logcial isn't done, the next step is confiscation.
In saying this you actually help my argument. If the next step doesn't produce the desired results then confiscation is the obvious next step. You've literally made Shannon Watts argument in advance here. The end goal is confiscation and the deep blue states have already shown this to be the case.
Quote:We don't want to teach gun safety and we don't want to restrict bad elements from obtaining guns. We don't want to limit gun owners because it might impede their rights. So we're drawing the line between gun owners who don't want to budge an inch with those who disdain firearms for the perceived inherent violence.
You want to couple any such efforts to legislation that would forbid confiscation and restrictions on law abiding citizens I'll happily hop on board. I've yet to see such legislation.
