When do the gun nuts of the Right get the message, that Draconian gun regulation is all that can save us now?

Question

About today's slaughter of 32 at Virginia Tech campus, we get this gem of wisdom...

"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said today.

Wow.

Cave people

Okay stupid, here goes: If the law made guns harder to get, he likely wouldn't have had one. I am not talking about a law that hinges on the honor system, like feeding a parking meter. I'm talking about much more red tape and higher licence fees and psychological profiles entirely prohibiting ome individuals from ever touching a gun.

Now, why is this too complex for you?

Answer 1

Remember - the same right wing kooks that root for the war in iraq, and think burning a flag is a death penalty offense, are the ones who think guns should be in everyones pocket so they can "defend" themselves.

Hello anarchy.

Answer 2

Well, I'll get the message when you explain to me how more gun laws would have stopped today's shooting, in light of the fact it was already a "gun free" zone by law.

While you're thinking about that, think about whether the body count would be higher or lower had someone on campus been lawfully carrying a firearm.

Answer 3

Right, Draconian gun regulation and a stricter interpretation of the Patriot Act, requiring an FBI agent to be posted in every livingroom. Sorry kiddo, you can't have it both ways. Either the Bill of Rights is worth fighting for, or it isn't. Abolishing guns won't curb the human tendency toward violence.

Answer 4

Better a gun in my hands than being at the mercy of a gun in the hands of some criminal.
How about Draconian administration of justice instead? Lets say... mandatory life without parole for using a gun to commit a crime? No 3 strikes, just one time, and you're gone.

Answer 5

There are MANY gun laws on the books, federal and state. THOSE should be enforced. We don't need any more laws! The second amendment gives us the RIGHT to arm ourselves. And, if a person wants to get a gun, they don't have to go through legal channels.

Answer 6

The total is 33 so for with more to come and for gun control i would rather take my chances with my gun than to depend on the logic of some nut with a gun.

Answer 7

No need to ban all weapons. But there is no point to owning an assualt rifle or a sniper rifle. A small .22 hand gun is enough for self-defense.

Answer 8

Here's a thought for ya, hypocrite: I've never committed a crime with any of my numerous firearms. Tens of millions of Americans can say the same. Why should we be forced to turn them in because of your knee jerk, myopic, hypocritical, "freedom supporting" hunger for power?

Answer 9

Draconian laws will not protect anyone. Criminals are already breaking laws, do you really think that they'll obey this one because you want them to? Typical lib bullcrap.

If you're one of those idiots who believe that guns kill people, then you have to believe:

Pencils cause misspelling

Cars make people drive drunk

Spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Wow yourself!!

Answer 10

As usual " NOT A COP IN SIGHT" .
We can't depend of government for protection, so we must protect ourselves.
These nuts always strike the unarmed and defenseless.
I'd like to see some ****** try to rape my wife's .38, it would be his last attack on anybody.

Answer 11

The man is in a world all by himself.

The right believe in ABSOLUTE, UNRESTRICTED, ACCESS to high firepower.

Banning such weapons in 1988 after the Stockton, California shooting by Ronald Reagan pissed off conservative gun rights groups--and were more upset when Clinton renewed the ban after Columbine.