Gun control - Why punish the law abiding rather than the criminals?

This has been beat to death, but maybe someone can explain it to me in a different way.

Why is it that the solution seems to be centered around specific types of arms which are hugely popular and by and large laying around dormant in the possesion of people with no ill intent, as opposed to looking at the people who're likely to commit gun crime, and the areas where most gun crime is committed?

Riddle me that.

How is it a solution to go after harmless people enjoying a constitutional right, as opposed to going after the people who're committing the crimes and do not care about any law you could put forth?

I'm simply asking a question, no intent to debate, I'm not quoting anyone, I'm not liking any posts... I just want to see the thought process and reasoning.

 

Dems just want to take every gun they can get away with , they dont really care how law abiding you are . They think guns are bad , and know they cant control your every waking moment as long as americans are armed . So hence they want them all, this is just the first step.

 

Gun restrictions aren't about stopping crime they are about chipping away at second amendment rights.

People largely support it out of ignorance a few support it out of malice.

 

Guns in the hands of ordinary citizens is the largest obstacle the progressives face. Guns are more powerful than the voting booth. They can corrupt everything else but guns remain the solid, impenetrable bastion between us and tyranny. Their goal is total disarmament except of course for themselves. Every American needs to know that the second amendment trumps all and every prohibitive dictate they can come up with. Law abiding gun owners are not the problem, confiscating every legal firearm in the US will not do a thing to stop gun violence but it will ensure the demise of our beloved republic.

 

Passing laws are easy and most laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. Many liberal politicians are sympathetic to criminals and hate to punish them thus they take the easy path and pass laws that penalize the law abiding. Just that simple.

 

That needs to change, the best way to stop a bully is to punch them in the face.

 

Come up with a way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally dangerous will protecting everyone else's right to guns.

 

Some people need to come to the realization that no matter how many laws we have, crime will always happen. Adding more gun laws isn't going to have this magic pill effect where gun crime doesn't occur. We are still going to continue to have mass shootings because people are f'd up. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any laws. We obviously need laws in order to punish those who DO commit a crime. Just don't expect more laws to have the impact you think it will.

 

Fear of a severe punishment can prevent many people from committing a crime.

 

Nope, that's the risk of having a free country.

Don't like that feel free to move elsewhere where the long established already agreed upon rules are different. Changing our rules because you might get struck by lightning is evil.

 

This country needs to have an open discussion about gun policy and the number of innocents that are being killed. That discussion is now taking place. I would think that most law abiding gun advocates would like to have a seat at the table and add their expertise beyond the word "no". If they do participate they can help direct policy while protecting their interests. If they are not a participating group in the discussion they may not like the results when and if people are finally ready to act.

 

There are only two things that members of Congress care about; election, and re-election. Everything they do... everything... is in support of those two things.

One of the tactics they use towards that end is to manufacture crisis, generate fear, uncertainty and doubt, and then legislate "solutions", that ultimately just benefit them, their partisan interests, and/or their lobbiest friends.

 

There can be no compromise, as the 2nd Amendment clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms cannont be infringed. All compromise does is result in a net loss of gun rights. I have yet to see an offer by the other side to reduce some gun restrictions in exchange for new gun restrictions.

 

It's quite simple; history shows that virtually every leftist revolution or government takeover doesn't occur until a country's citizens are disarmed.

Pick your totalitarian state; the Soviets, China, Cambodia, Cuba, Germany and anywhere a group takes over a government, they first have to remove firearms from the hands of private citizens.

While some extremely ignorant people on the gun-control bandwagon have honorable intentions and naively think they are making society safer, many gun grabbers see normal Americans who are armed as an obstacle to them fundamentally changing the United States of America, as the corrupt former president put it...

 

More paranoid lunatic rants...They want to yer Guns!!!!!

 

Yeah name ANYTIME that has happened in America...Non sense

 

There is a reason why the founding fathers new enough to set up a govt with checks and balances.

 

Well, democrats have introduced a bill every year that bans semi-auto weapons that have detachable magazines which is literally almost all semi-auto rifles and handguns so...

 

At the federal level?

 

Yes. Every year since the end of the AWB.

 

And yet no federal ban

 

So, citizens do not need ASSAULT weapons to "defend" themselves

 

You may not see Pelosi bring it to the floor as she is not politically stupid.

 

Define 'assault weapon'.

 

Not going with your "definition"....You can believe that...Ban them