What a moron.

[Liberty]

The disarming of America

LAST week's tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America's finest - intelligent young people with futures ahead of them - once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.


The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear last week is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.

When people talk about doing something about guns in America, it often comes down to this: "How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there."

*snip*

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Full Article


This man is insane.

.

[Hane]

Originally Posted by Liberty

Full Article


This man is insane.

.

Yep. And something else too.

Dan says:

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hane says:

Dan, when you turned in your small testicles, that probably took less than three seconds. As an American, I have a right to bear arms so take your idea and cram it in your ear.

[politicalboy]

I know everyone realizes this, but the sum of all the parts that keeps comeing up the same for me is, if they were to do what they want then only the bad guys would have guns, no matter the strategies to disarm us, the penalties or whatever, bad guys break laws thats what they do, thats why they are called bad guys, so lets just let them have all the weopons and we can be the armless pollyanna society they want. These initiatives may be closer than we all think, I hope and pray they are not, however the argument can be made that they are a generation away, if most folks are like I am, which I would assume a good many are, they won't get my guns as long as I am drawing breath, like I said I pray it never comes down to that.

[andophiroxia]

Wow, didn't Hitler disarm the population?

Guess what happened?

Didn't Stalin do the same?

I guess learning the lessons of history is only conveinent here.

[RandomNY]

Ummm let me guess the author of this article has never been mugged nor has anyone in his family been attacked...

He probably lives in a nice gated community, or has an armed bodyguard like Rosie O'Donnell..

[JustOneHunter]

A person with intention to kill will purchase a gun by legal or Illegal methods, they will kill with motivation. Laws are for innocent abiding people but then aren't all killers PSYCHO? Anti-Gun people label people nuts...listen to their message...we are all Psycho!

Only people delirious are those that think they are protected by a Door on their house and dial 911! POOLEASE!

[Sgt. Rock]

Originally Posted by JustOneHunter

A person with intention to kill will purchase a gun by legal or Illegal methods, they will kill with motivation. Laws are for innocent abiding people but then aren't all killers PSYCHO? Anti-Gun people label people nuts...listen to their message...we are all Psycho!

Only people delirious are those that think they are protected by a Door on their house and dial 911! POOLEASE!

Bravo, JOH. In my various and sundry run ins with anti gunners, I always tell them, 'I will turn in my guns tomorrow if you can tell me how a gun law will keep a criminal from getting a gun if my definition a criminal does not obey laws.' It stymies them every time. I get the same old tired rhetoric about how no guns would make for a safer society and how more laws would keep people like Cho from getting a gun.

And then I go right back to the original question. I have NEVER had one anti gunner able to give me a cogent answer. Because they can't.

Police are reactive, not proactive. Now, I'm not putting police down, but their job is to catch criminals after the fact, they cannot prevent crimes from occurring; although they do their best. My wife is a 9-1-1 dispatcher and she will tell you that in most cases you'll be a bag of cooling meat by the time the police show up at your door. Hopefully, they'll fine the person who killed you but maybe they won't.

Bottom line: If you're depending on the police to keep you alive, you're living a fool's dream. Again, I'm not knocking our brothers and sisters in law enforcement, just making the point that We The People MUST take some responsibility for our own safety and security.

[JustOneHunter]

Bottom line: If you're depending on the police to keep you alive, you're living a fool's dream. Again, I'm not knocking our brothers and sisters in law enforcement, just making the point that We The People MUST take some responsibility for our own safety and security.

This one statement sends a clear message, defend yourself first and then call the police after you made your surroundings secure. Better you defend yourself and live, and answer questions why you defended yourself .

[Warhawk1982]

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

[Richard Borts]

I have talked with policemen who feel people shouldn't be able to own guns much less carry them,they believe it makes their job more difficult to try to determine who the "bad guy" is,to me its the guy who's shooting at you,thats who the "bad guy" is.What it comes down to is that it is a constitutional right so we can protect ourseleves from the governmaent and the criminal element.