Just about there....only a few more to go....
21. Limiting the amount of ammunition you can purchase within a given time
period.
This is as absurd as the last one...limiting how many weapons one can buy in a given period of time. And just as with the last one, anyone wishing to engage in mass murder can simply wait until he can supply himself with whatever amount of ammo he believes will be required for the task. The saddest aspect of this proposal is without a parallel law requiring one must use up the ammo from one's last purchase, building up a stock of ammo is simply a longer process than it would be without the idiotic law that won't change a thing. And that's ignoring the fact that ammo can likely be had through illegal sources as can be weapons. No one selling weapons is worth a damn without also selling ammo. But again, even with legal purchasing, one simply waits the required time and buys more.
22. Requiring that all gun owners store their guns in a safe storage unit.
Even without "gun violence" considered, this law is idiotic. When dealing with a break-in, why force a potential victim to spend unnecessary time to arm up? How dare anyone demand how others protect themselves as if everyone exists in identical situations.
But how will this reduce "gun violence"? It won't. Who would bother with this restriction if they were among the criminal element? Who would be prevented from perpetuating violence simply because they have to get their gun from the "safe storage unit"?
Oh wait! This is about the kids, isn't it? But what responsible gun owner leaves his weapons lying about where idiot kids can access them? What irresponsible gun owner would bother with a safe?
It's absurd. And it's just another infringement that is completely anathema to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, which is for the purpose of self-protection. This idiocy interferes with a person's ability to defend himself by making access to the person's weapon more difficult. Remember: any proposal that infringes on the right is unworthy of consideration. One must have the unrestricted freedom to exercise a right or it is not a right at all.
23. Banning firearms from all workplace settings nationally.
So, apparently to idiots, the right to protect one's place of business is for asshats to ignore. "Workplace settings" are mostly private properties. Only the owner of a property has the authority to dictate what is or isn't appropriate on the owner's property. And what is the owner supposed to do to prevent others from carrying a weapon into his place of business? Set up metal detectors at every point of entry? But hey, we can always use more target rich environments, can't we?
24. Requiring that gun buyers complete safety training and a test for their specific firearm.
How about requiring complete civics and current events training before one can exercise one's right to vote? While training with one's weapon is a good idea...without a doubt...forcing someone to take the time and money (not including the ammo necessary, which ain't free) is an infringement for which there is no data that suggests it would make anyone safer. And who would run the testing and who would determine what it takes to pass? How do we get the criminals and insane to submit to such a thing?
This idiocy assumes the typical, law-abiding gun owner isn't responsible enough to train on his own as he has the opportunity and financial wherewithal to do so. But lacking either or both, to deny one the ability to arm up as is his right simply because of an inability take or pass an arbitrary test is unconstitutional.
25. Implementing a national “buy-back” program for all banned firearms and magazines, where the government pays people to turn in illegal guns.
Like socialism, this has never worked anywhere it has been tried. It's impact on "gun violence" is indistinguishable and there is no data that gives anything close to a clear picture as to whether it makes a difference or not. Indeed, it's really easy to see that it doesn't. Among the many problems with this idiotic notion:
a) Most weapons turned in are old, dysfunctional and not of the type commonly used in crimes.
b) Weapons turned in account for an incredibly tiny percentage of weapons believed to exist in a given area where the program is focused.
c) These programs often promise a "no questions asked" offer, which allows for criminals to turn in weapons used in crimes, thereby severely lessening the ability to solve them. In other words, it's like destroying evidence.
d) Any money offered can be used by criminals to buy weapons. Kinda self-defeating.
26. Banning firearms from schools and college campuses nationally.
This is a great example of "Hey! I'm a complete moron!", and anyone who thinks this is a good idea after the many deaths at these very types of locations needs to be institutionalized. Now, I know that the idiot who made up this list thinks that schools will be safe if ALL these nonsensical and impotent ideas are enacted. That's delusional thinking. Adding another stupid idea doesn't make other stupid ideas more effective. It's just compounds the stupidity and innocent, law-abiding people would then be at greater risk from all those who ignore laws in the first place. Better than banning weapons would be instituting ideas that actually make students and staff safer, and those which were laid out in this post and those that preceded it.
27. Requiring that all gun owners store their guns with childproof locks.
"Well, I got the gun out of the safe, and while I was fumbling with the key to remove the trigger lock, the asshole shot my wife and kids." Yeah. Really great idea only a moron could love.
So, as can easily be seen, there is nothing to which anyone can point and insist lives would be saved, violence would be reduced or any good could come from any of the points listed (except where indicated...and those were "iffy"). As we've seen in countries where gun laws are tighter than here, such as the UK, knives have become the weapon of choice and idiots in Great Britain have taken to banning and restricting those as well. Yet, the real problems are never addressed...problems with character. The weapon of choice matters little to the low character individual intent on doing harm and murdering as many as possible. There's no way to eliminate every possible means which such a person might utilize. "Where there's a will, there's a way" works for assholes, too. Disarming the public, infringing on the right and ability to protect ones' self makes no one safer. Worse, it puts the law-abiding not only at the mercy of the criminal and insane, but of a government gone bad, which is why we have the restriction on government which is the 2nd Amendment. Like all of the Constitution, this Amendment doesn't convey a right upon us. It denies the government the ability to take it away...unless too many leftists take office.
Monday, January 20, 2020
Thursday, January 02, 2020
More Suggestions Of No Consequence
Before moving on, I would remind that most of these "suggestions" (they're nothing more) were shown to be useless in previous posts here and here. (Wow! It's been a year and a half since feo first presented his worthless and ineffective suggestions, and he still thinks they'd do anything! What an idiot!!) One can refer to them for details on why they're worthless, as I will only be skimming those points here. Let's begin again:
11. Expanding screening and treatment for the mentally ill.
Far more important is simply adding the names of the most dangerous to the only national registry that would make a difference (the mentally ill and criminal). The idea is keeping guns out of their hands. Treatment for mental illnesses that might lead to violent outcomes is a different issue. Until they are "cured", they're a danger and can't be allowed to arm up. Now, in yet another post of mine on the subject, which had actual effective proposals, I spoke of the need for those so tasked to be diligent in reporting to the proper authorities those who are a danger, and for those who receive the reports to also do their jobs in seeing to it the dangerous and their personal, identifying info are inputted into the system to which all gun dealers would have access. Both the Parkland, FL case and the Sutherland Springs, TX shootings were both the result of alleged professionals not doing their jobs.
It must also be considered that involuntary commitment should likely be a part of any treatment where a patient is considered a potential danger. Are the gun control freaks up for that?
12. Requiring that all gun buyers demonstrate a a ”genuine need” for a gun, such as a law enforcement job or hunting.
Aside from being incredibly subjective and by definition, a clear infringement of one's Constitutional right to bear arms, who gets to decide the criteria to determine "genuine need"? An asshat like feo? God help us!! Possession of any weapon is insurance against a possibility that hopefully will never arise. Clearly feo has no genuine need for a gun, though he certainly has one for psychological counseling. He could use a slap, too!
13. Requiring all guns to microstamp each bullet with a mark that uniquely matches the gun and bullet.
Aside from the fact that the tech for such is pretty much non-existent in that it just doesn't work like idiots such as feo believes they do, it's so easy to get around. A crook can even easily frame an innocent gun owner by sweeping up spent casings at gun ranges and such. This wouldn't reduce "gun violence" one iota, either by itself or added to any number of these other stupid ideas.
14. Increasing minimum penalties for people found possessing firearms illegally.
Assuming what constitutes illegal possession focuses only on convicted criminals and certifiable mental patients, this is an "after the fact" proposal. If one of these types of people are found to illegally possess a firearm after committing a crime...like shooting someone...it hardly prevented anything. What's more, it would only prevent "gun violence" for the duration of whatever penalty is imposed...assuming that penalty includes incarceration.
I will say, however, I have absolutely no problem increasing penalties for convicted criminals who do anything their convictions deny them doing. They're criminals, after all.
15. Requiring gun dealers to keep, retain and report all gun records and sales to the Federal government.
This is a registry and only a complete and utter moron would suggest that the very entity the 2nd Amendment restricts from infringing upon our rights should know who has weapons and how many. The stupidity of this boy is incredible! And of course, all the convicted criminals and other scumbags will be quick to purchase all their weapons from these gun dealers just so they can inform the authorities they're armed with weapons they're prohibited from owning.
16. Banning the sale and ownership of assault rifles or similar firearms.
Stupid people use the term "assault rifle" as if it means anything. Dishonest people use the term to make stupid people scared by using that term as if it means anything. They wish to pretend that common semi-automatic rifles are somehow military grade...on a scale of fully automatic "machine guns"...simply because cosmetic accessories make them look scary. Most murders are not the result of murderers using such weapons. They account for a smaller amount of murders than blunt instruments and hands and feet used as weapons. Liars love this idea.
17. Requiring all gun owners to register their fingerprints.
There are situations unrelated to guns or crime that require fingerprinting, mostly having to do with employment. I've had to submit to fingerprinting several times in my life for employment purposes. I didn't much care for being required as I regard it as an invasion of privacy. However, though I'd have preferred not to, I'm not manic about it, needed the jobs at the time, so I submitted.
Of course, obviously, law-breaking results in the requirement and that's a good thing. Thus, this is one idea that has some merit for the purpose of denying guns to bad guys.
Here's the problem: How can we be guaranteed that any submission to fingerprinting won't result in one's gun purchase being recorded by government? If fingerprinting does no more than demonstrate a buyer has no criminal record that prohibits gun purchases, I see no problem in fingerprinting gun owners only at the point of purchase and then trashing the prints after confirmation that purchasing is legal. There must be no storing of info related to the purchase after that confirmation is made, because then a registry of gun ownership is made. That's dangerous and won't prevent gun violence.
18. Preventing sales of all firearms and ammunition to anyone considered to be a “known or suspected terrorist” by the F.B.I.
This is two different suggestions here. Preventing sales to a "known" terrorist is redundant. We're already denying sales to criminals, and what is a terrorist but a criminal.
But a "suspected" terrorist can be anybody to whom a government wishes to prohibit gun ownership. In other words, a "suspected" terrorist is an innocent person not found guilty of having committed a terrorist act. "Suspected terrorist" is a term that needs clear definition. Of course, if feo is suspected, I'm cool with him being denied.
19. Requiring a mandatory waiting period of three days after gun is purchased before it can be taken home.
People, mostly women, have died while awaiting approval to exercise their Constitutional right. There is no solid data that proves waiting periods alter murder/suicide rates. But if infringing upon anyone's right to bear arms, even for three days, results in being defenseless when the purchase was to protect against a real threat, it then increased the murder rate should the threat be realized. There is no way to determine if a waiting period of any duration will be long enough for every kook who wants to off himself. In the meantime, someone who needs to protect him/herself is put in greater jeopardy just to appease gun control freaks.
20. Limiting the number of guns that can be purchased to one per month.
An absolute infringement that will have no effect whatsoever. One weapon is all that's needed to murder. Having more than one is a luxury. Yet, if one wishes to be well stocked in order to kill as many as possibly, waiting however many months it takes to store up the necessary number will simply delay the kook's plan. It's idiotic. And what if someone wishes to buy two or three for gifts? As much a stretch as that might seem, the point of it is that such a suggestion means a buyer is presumed to be dangerous simply because of a multi-gun purchase. If the buyer has no criminal or mental health record, there is no legitimate reason to deny a multiple purchase. No one has to fear a law abiding person. Thus, no affect on crime by such an absurd restriction.
That's all for now. There's about seven left on feo's list, and no doubt they're each as stupid as those we've covered thus far. Now, this joker might not care about these posts, since he claims he's "done with me" after failing in another debate. Doesn't matter. I'm going to carry on until I've covered his (*snicker*) "plan". The rest should come more quickly now that the busy time at work has ended. Stay tuned.
11. Expanding screening and treatment for the mentally ill.
Far more important is simply adding the names of the most dangerous to the only national registry that would make a difference (the mentally ill and criminal). The idea is keeping guns out of their hands. Treatment for mental illnesses that might lead to violent outcomes is a different issue. Until they are "cured", they're a danger and can't be allowed to arm up. Now, in yet another post of mine on the subject, which had actual effective proposals, I spoke of the need for those so tasked to be diligent in reporting to the proper authorities those who are a danger, and for those who receive the reports to also do their jobs in seeing to it the dangerous and their personal, identifying info are inputted into the system to which all gun dealers would have access. Both the Parkland, FL case and the Sutherland Springs, TX shootings were both the result of alleged professionals not doing their jobs.
It must also be considered that involuntary commitment should likely be a part of any treatment where a patient is considered a potential danger. Are the gun control freaks up for that?
12. Requiring that all gun buyers demonstrate a a ”genuine need” for a gun, such as a law enforcement job or hunting.
Aside from being incredibly subjective and by definition, a clear infringement of one's Constitutional right to bear arms, who gets to decide the criteria to determine "genuine need"? An asshat like feo? God help us!! Possession of any weapon is insurance against a possibility that hopefully will never arise. Clearly feo has no genuine need for a gun, though he certainly has one for psychological counseling. He could use a slap, too!
13. Requiring all guns to microstamp each bullet with a mark that uniquely matches the gun and bullet.
Aside from the fact that the tech for such is pretty much non-existent in that it just doesn't work like idiots such as feo believes they do, it's so easy to get around. A crook can even easily frame an innocent gun owner by sweeping up spent casings at gun ranges and such. This wouldn't reduce "gun violence" one iota, either by itself or added to any number of these other stupid ideas.
14. Increasing minimum penalties for people found possessing firearms illegally.
Assuming what constitutes illegal possession focuses only on convicted criminals and certifiable mental patients, this is an "after the fact" proposal. If one of these types of people are found to illegally possess a firearm after committing a crime...like shooting someone...it hardly prevented anything. What's more, it would only prevent "gun violence" for the duration of whatever penalty is imposed...assuming that penalty includes incarceration.
I will say, however, I have absolutely no problem increasing penalties for convicted criminals who do anything their convictions deny them doing. They're criminals, after all.
15. Requiring gun dealers to keep, retain and report all gun records and sales to the Federal government.
This is a registry and only a complete and utter moron would suggest that the very entity the 2nd Amendment restricts from infringing upon our rights should know who has weapons and how many. The stupidity of this boy is incredible! And of course, all the convicted criminals and other scumbags will be quick to purchase all their weapons from these gun dealers just so they can inform the authorities they're armed with weapons they're prohibited from owning.
16. Banning the sale and ownership of assault rifles or similar firearms.
Stupid people use the term "assault rifle" as if it means anything. Dishonest people use the term to make stupid people scared by using that term as if it means anything. They wish to pretend that common semi-automatic rifles are somehow military grade...on a scale of fully automatic "machine guns"...simply because cosmetic accessories make them look scary. Most murders are not the result of murderers using such weapons. They account for a smaller amount of murders than blunt instruments and hands and feet used as weapons. Liars love this idea.
17. Requiring all gun owners to register their fingerprints.
There are situations unrelated to guns or crime that require fingerprinting, mostly having to do with employment. I've had to submit to fingerprinting several times in my life for employment purposes. I didn't much care for being required as I regard it as an invasion of privacy. However, though I'd have preferred not to, I'm not manic about it, needed the jobs at the time, so I submitted.
Of course, obviously, law-breaking results in the requirement and that's a good thing. Thus, this is one idea that has some merit for the purpose of denying guns to bad guys.
Here's the problem: How can we be guaranteed that any submission to fingerprinting won't result in one's gun purchase being recorded by government? If fingerprinting does no more than demonstrate a buyer has no criminal record that prohibits gun purchases, I see no problem in fingerprinting gun owners only at the point of purchase and then trashing the prints after confirmation that purchasing is legal. There must be no storing of info related to the purchase after that confirmation is made, because then a registry of gun ownership is made. That's dangerous and won't prevent gun violence.
18. Preventing sales of all firearms and ammunition to anyone considered to be a “known or suspected terrorist” by the F.B.I.
This is two different suggestions here. Preventing sales to a "known" terrorist is redundant. We're already denying sales to criminals, and what is a terrorist but a criminal.
But a "suspected" terrorist can be anybody to whom a government wishes to prohibit gun ownership. In other words, a "suspected" terrorist is an innocent person not found guilty of having committed a terrorist act. "Suspected terrorist" is a term that needs clear definition. Of course, if feo is suspected, I'm cool with him being denied.
19. Requiring a mandatory waiting period of three days after gun is purchased before it can be taken home.
People, mostly women, have died while awaiting approval to exercise their Constitutional right. There is no solid data that proves waiting periods alter murder/suicide rates. But if infringing upon anyone's right to bear arms, even for three days, results in being defenseless when the purchase was to protect against a real threat, it then increased the murder rate should the threat be realized. There is no way to determine if a waiting period of any duration will be long enough for every kook who wants to off himself. In the meantime, someone who needs to protect him/herself is put in greater jeopardy just to appease gun control freaks.
20. Limiting the number of guns that can be purchased to one per month.
An absolute infringement that will have no effect whatsoever. One weapon is all that's needed to murder. Having more than one is a luxury. Yet, if one wishes to be well stocked in order to kill as many as possibly, waiting however many months it takes to store up the necessary number will simply delay the kook's plan. It's idiotic. And what if someone wishes to buy two or three for gifts? As much a stretch as that might seem, the point of it is that such a suggestion means a buyer is presumed to be dangerous simply because of a multi-gun purchase. If the buyer has no criminal or mental health record, there is no legitimate reason to deny a multiple purchase. No one has to fear a law abiding person. Thus, no affect on crime by such an absurd restriction.
That's all for now. There's about seven left on feo's list, and no doubt they're each as stupid as those we've covered thus far. Now, this joker might not care about these posts, since he claims he's "done with me" after failing in another debate. Doesn't matter. I'm going to carry on until I've covered his (*snicker*) "plan". The rest should come more quickly now that the busy time at work has ended. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)