God created man - Sam Colt made them even!

There are a couple things that might work:

1- Properly train and arm honest law abiding citizens so they can defend themselves against these predators - who tend to be lazy (hence their criminal behavior), and may seek other means of raising money for their various addictions if they are convinced we have the right to shoot back.

2- Install enough high resolution video cameras (big brother) everywhere, and then execute the violent ones (hopefully before they have a chance to breed indiscriminately with welfare recipients)

Yes, I realize that these are not politically correct solutions, but our police are overwhelmed, our cities are bankrupt, our prisons are controlled by alpha predators (gangs), and our political system (including its checks and balances) have been corrupted by money (hiding behind corporate veils), so what is the answer?

dan49829 wrote on 07/09/13 at 07:02:07:


True, and the second amendment made the criminal way more power ful with the element of surprise, intention to do harm and with nothing to lose while the guy who's sitting @ home with 3 children and a pregnant wife is a sitting duck even with 10 guns, but it only takes 1 criminal with a gun to a baby's head to paralyse everyone ... Yeaaaaay second amendment.

Cool.
Srinath.

Brings me to the other point I have been making.

The biggest item stolen from people's houses, in fact some break in's are mainly to steal guns from people's houses. So much for being heavily armed ... the criminals wont be interested in you if you weren't.

Much like this "we need these here guns to protect us against the gubbamint that's coming to make us register these here guns."

Anyway you had em registered, so calling in stolen, gave you a full on immunity ... if there were rifling marks kept with the guns data, the cops will know it was committed by some criminal with gun stolen from you. Still doesn't help you.

Anyway, having guns makes yo ua target for a break in, I've had 2 neighbors One @ the house next door, and one who now lives next door, @ the house they lived in earlier, who were broken into and the most $$$ thing stolen was guns. The first guy had a 25g+ harley sitting in the garage with keys in it. They didn't touch it. Guns and laptop was what they stole. Nothing else.

Having a single gun, yes you may not be much of a target, have a bunch, you're likely to get broken into, just for that.

You've not read my solution at all. My solution is to make it easier for law abiding people to get guns, and harder for criminals to. Saying gun laws make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns is only true because we have one law in 1 state, and a totally different, no law at all in the state next door. Like a criminal cant drive 20 miles ... or 500 miles

Cool.
Srinath.

oldNslow wrote on 07/09/13 at 08:39:39:

Yea, one more of those, we dont like that we have to do something ... so we're gonna call in nonsense.

The second amendment, helping criminals get guns for 200 years cos we dont want to change nothing mantras.

Cool.
Srinath.

NormH3 wrote on 07/09/13 at 09:36:32:


He he ... yea the troll is being fed by anti 2nd amendment conglomerate ... this was my game all along, get onto savage.com and post for 5 years then boom, post anti 2nd amendment posts.

I obviously dont understand the full impact of the second amendment ... obviously, cos I am not, and never intend to be a criminal ... that's who it is written for. I will be able to buy a gun with all the restrictions they can impose 100% legally, so I am not the one who's protected by the second amendment. Go to a jail and take a poll about the second amendment ... you'd get 100% support. Try the general population - you'd make 60-70% ... its for criminals mainly.

Cool.
Srinath.

To effectively communicate your ideas, you may want to refrain from insulting segments of the population who you apparently believe represent those advocating the right to keep and bear arms.

Your solution may work in a highly centralized authoritarian environment, but would require individual states (the people) to give up one of their rights to self govern.  Historically, the Federal Government hasn't necessarily done a better job of regulating many things, and by the time our politicians were done inserting special interest modifiers, your bill probably wouldn't even resemble what you intended it to be.

A national database of "rifling" and registration information might work as you describe, but rifling isn't hard to modify, and would certainly spawn another lucrative underground business.

There are a lot of things wrong with our system and if not addressed, we will likely end up being just another footnote in history, but there is also an obvious solution that is somewhat in line with your way of thinking.  

Program super computers to make decisions for us - if properly (with integrity) programmed, no special interests would be able to intervene in "common sense" solutions - no grid lock would prevent decisions from being made, and as long as everyone felt they were sharing (fairly) in whatever sacrifices were proposed there would be less anger and resistance.

This proposal would also finally unite both parties in a common cause as they (as well as those powerful entities hiding behind the corporate veil)did everything they could to scare the populace into believing that this would result in Armageddon.  That's why it will never happen under the current Masters!

Point taken, but I have been arguing this same point 1000 times for the last 6 months - or even earlier. Every few days someone brings up the same point over and over and over.

Anyway, We make laws for the way things happen now. Not a hypothetical future.

If people modify rifling or even switch to smooth bore -
1. We wont tell them we have the info.
2. Its one more step, need skills and $$$.
3. It still is traceable.
4. At the very least it will teach young punks a new skill and make them think and work. Maybe they wont try to be criminals and maybe try to be machinists instead.

In any case, the gun will be tied to the guy that's holding it electronically in a database.

I also have had the same reaction to the $100 bullet tax, so a nut case cant buy 30,000 bullets and spray them into a crowd. However criminals dont care ... they only want 1 or 2 bullets. That will hurt the law abiding too.
Wont bother a criminal 1 bit. Making guns more and more $$$ regardless of where they are bought will do some thing ... except it will affect the law abiding citizens too.

Keeping 100% gun ownership including rifling data is going to not affect law abiding users, but bite criminals hard, wont affect the nutcases though. Hiding behind the second amendment, is the rights for criminals to get guns via straw purchases. Buy 50 in SC, drive to NYC and unload them in the hood. Cant think of a better way to make a few $1000000 ...

Owning a gun is a responsibility too ... some people dont want that responsibility. Criminals dont care. They want guns, they want to commit crimes, they want to toss the gun, and they want the next gun. I use the second amendment 1 time in my life. A criminal uses it every week ... or every other week if he has a slow week. Who would be affected more when you clamp down with gun laws ?

Same as the anchor baby question. I have never been out of legal status. I had a child only after getting a green card (to prevent the kid from the trauma of having to move across the world) ... and compare that to illegals having babies with no father on record and no income, job or legal status ... baby on welfare from day 1, mommy is illegal and cant be deported due to anchor baby ... repeat 10X ...

Shred the 17th amendment - I'm never going to need it, and I am who it was written for. I guess the anchor baby mama is who it was written for.

Super computers, I've had enough garbage to deal with in my line of work to know its likely to fall on its face and the many 100 ways it will.

Cool.
Srinath.