Owen wrote:Cbmarine wrote:But we need something in place to catch the Aaron Alexis types before they do something like the Navy Yard or Sandy Hook here in Delaware. If that type of tragedy occurs here, I predict that we will get HBs 88, 58 and 67 plus SBs 23 and 37 rammed down out throats without recourse.
All we need to make them safe is to get rid of "Gun Free (Crime) Zones". The kid in CO recently was not stopped by a law on the books but rather buy a good guy with a gun. All we need is more good guys with guns not more laws.
I can't even figure out how these type of laws are supposed to stop someone. It's like lets make murder illegal and it will never happen.
There are no laws that prevent any crimes. The people intent on these, and especially mass shooter, killed by cop, folks plan on dying anyway.
Besides which there were already laws in place that could have been used in both those cases that weren't used. More laws aren't about that, since the older laws weren't used either. But it does make us all less free. and provides no added safety. They are just more 'feel good' laws that take away from our rights.
Like the magazine bans. Cops being exempt, and realistically so are the criminals. That means it only applies to the laws abiding that's carrying a gun for self protection. Limit the amount of ammo they can carry in a gun while the criminal is not even considering these laws and carrying the maximum amount. Thus we're stuck with trying to reload under a stressful situation all while the criminals are blasting away at us.
As Ben Franklin so eloquently wrote;
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
As equally important was the idea of Blackstone when he wrote;
"It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer."
The principle is much older than Blackstone's formulation, being closely tied to the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. An early example of the principle appears in the Bible (Genesis 18:23-32),[1][2] as:
“
Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?[3] ... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake."[4]
”
These are the basis on which our country was founded. Not some socialistic ideals of the collective and that we should restrain all free men in the hopes of catching a criminal.
So why should we be so willing to give the socialist more of what they want? What do we gain? Or what has been gained as we've given them what they wanted before. All those bils are just a shadow of what they truly want. And that is all guns banned from personal possession. It's been the underlying mantra of the gun control people for longer then we've been alive.
Back in the 70's one group was called the
National Coalition to Ban Handguns. They've since expanded to include all firearms and call themselves the
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. But like all the gun control groups it's not about preventing crime but control over people.
Much of it a distraction as they try and maintain some form of political correctness in their names. They'll change the names as time goes on to make it 'sound' more reasonable. Currently they're pushing the gun violence theme and I've also heard them talking about gun safety, as if they've ever been involved with that. Remember these people count legit police and other civilian self defense shootings as just more 'gun violence'. So much so they included the Boston Marathon bomber on their list of victims of gun violence.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein
What a shame that we have the two major political parties that believe the former.