Colbert: Stop ignoring gun violence (new definition of insanity)

States with lower rates of deaths by gun tend to have stricter laws regarding the buying and selling of them. Go look up what they're doing since they are all apparently constitutional (or they'd have been sued in a NY minute).

 

Almost the exact same number of people have been killed in mass killings in Australia in the same time span before and after Port Arthur. The only thing that has changed is the method.

You can call it a "brush fire" all you want, but it was determined to be a mass killing because that's what it was.

 

So are you going to pay the funeral costs for the victims of these mass shootings which could be prevented?

Oh wait of course not.

But again...you don't care about that cause guns. Same lame argument and do nothing attitude over and over again.

 

I want to know YOUR idea of gun control.
Some of the states with the strictest gun control laws have some cities that are killing fields.

 

I would tend to advocate for similar laws across the country gleaned from states and localities where they've been proven to work. Further, national laws would need to be strengthened to allow them to work; the NRA and conspiracy types who see massive confiscation around every corner ought to be shown the door.

 

As an "NRA type", I am fully on board with any gun control law that does two things:

-Prevents criminals from getting guns
-Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

Let me know when you find one.

 

I get it... you won't be specific. I asked what laws YOU want to put in place. I haven't seen any gun control laws that have been proven to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and don't infringe on 2A rights.

 

The gun-control crowd's failures are directly attributable to a lack of trust. I don't think the American people trust them by and large. They've shown themselves to be out-and-out liars over and over again.

 

Break that down to cites instead of states and what do you get? I'll answer that for you. Democrats commit the murders in this country.

 

Your position, and the lack of anything meaningful, has been noted.

Ultimately your position amounts to empowering mental health professionals to preemptively deny countless individuals their constitutional rights, on the slim possibility that one of those who is denied will be the next mass murderer who would make the news. This is operating under the mistaken and nonsensical assumption that said individual would not be able to acquire a firearm through the secondary or black market.

What you fail to address, however, is the obvious question of what good your suggestion would amount to if the person responsible for the next series of mass murders never saw a mental health professional at all, and thus is without any sort of record. You cannot legally compel countless millions of individuals to undergo psychological examinations prior to exercising some of their constitutional rights but not others.

What will you suggest when individuals simply stop seeking out psychological help, because they do not wish to be stigmatized over this fact?

 

yeah DC is proof of that

NOT

lots of time and money is needed for unconstitutional laws to be overturned. I think when DC passed its unconstitutional law, the people who passed it should be held civilly liable for the costs of the plaintiffs and all other aggrieved citizens should be able to sue successfully for the deprivation of their constitutional rights under "BIVENS vs 6 Named Agents

 

I got one-mandatory sentences for those who use guns in violent crimes. you get those thugs off the street and no honest citizens are harmed

 

Because doing nothing is working so well? What will you tell the families of the next victims? Because a it's not a matter of IF its a matter of WHEN.

So what's your brilliant idea? Please enlighten me. I'm all ears.

 

Me too. Problem is, that's not how the laws are working even though they appear to be reasonable. They've been gutted in too many cases, sometimes even before being passed, particularly the ones applying to straw buyers who now can go from store to store buying a couple here and then there, all without tripping a warning flag. I've posted the various holes in the laws today, so it's not new information. Go look - you'll find them.

For Orlando and QLB: You two seem to suggest that unless any laws be at or near 100% effective in preventing criminals from obtaining weapons, then we ought to forget them. Yes? No? In between?

 

Here's a novel concept. How about enforcing the laws you already have? A zero sum game for the rule of law is only a concept that a liberal could embrace and is an insane concept. An EFFECTIVE law is quite a different animal.

PS: If someone wants to write a law regulating guns they might want to know something about them. Case in point is the idiot Diana DeGette, a Democratic Congresswoman who embarrassed herself with her lack of knowledge. There are many other examples.

 

You're falling for the blame the gun argument, you're demonizing the gun by conceding that a crime is worse when committed with a gun.

 

I would modify this to say: "mandatory sentences for those who commit violent crimes, using any weapon (to include hands and feet)". Our prison system is almost 100% effective at only one thing: segregating those who are a danger to peaceable society, and preventing their access to weapons. We should exploit that astounding effectiveness to realize a meaningful reduction of violent crime.

- - - Updated - - -

Doing "nothing different" has gained us a demonstrable net benefit with regards to violent crime in the US.

 

Sounds like you want to inhibit the rights of millions of perfectly law abiding citizens, just to say you did "something", no matter if it is proven effective or not.

 

The word you are looking for is "infringe".

 

Your response is absent any suggestions for laws that meet my criteria.
Why is that?

 

I was trying to not be repetitive.

 

Are you talking about the Colbert that has armed body guard's?

 

uh that's stupid. I am punishing people who use a gun to try to harm others that is not blaming the gun but the crook. and if they use a knife or a flamethrower or a grenade, its the same enhancement

 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Franklin