Mike Lester for April 11, 2013

  1. Missing large
    Wraithkin  almost 11 years ago

    Which still won’t prevent Sandy Hook.

     •  Reply
  2. All seeing eye
    Chillbilly  almost 11 years ago

    Well if you’re not a cop or a soldier when you shoot someone, there’s a pretty good chance you’re going to become a criminal. What’s the point here?

     •  Reply
  3. Reagan ears
    d_legendary1  almost 11 years ago

    @MolesterIf America wasn’t so good at exporting 6 million guns in 2012 then maybe the criminals wouldn’t import these badboys back to the states and commit crimes with them. More guns = More crime period! Legal or otherwise.

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    Wraithkin  almost 11 years ago

    I would argue the popular consensus is not in fair of “limitations,” but in background checks. They aren’t the same. But answer me this: First, what the hell is a bus bunny? It doesn’t make any sense in the current context.Secondly, how would your suggestions stop the situation that happened in Sandy Hook? She legally owned the firearm. She legally purchased the firearms. She wasn’t a threat. Her son was. So does this mean you support guilt by association? How do you background check that? How broadly do you cast your net? Immediate family? Relatives? Neighbors? Because there is absolutely nothing being proposed today that would have prevented Sandy Hook. Except one, which is frequently discarded because of its source: Provide armed security at each school. There are a lot of veterans who are out of work who would love the opportunity to do that. We enlist not because of the money or the benefits; we enlist because we believe in protecting our country. And we have a unique level of training that ensures we actually know what the hell we’re doing. We have all this chatter about preventing firearms from entering the hands of criminals, but none of the proposals will do that. We could have a national gun registry, and it still wouldn’t stop it; it’s not like a criminal is going to register his firearm before he uses it! All the proposed legislation is going to do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens from getting weapons. If or when a sort of check like this is required, registry is mandated, you can bet your bottom dollar there are a lot of us who will refuse to comply. If or when I get a firearm, I will not be part of a national database so the government can pinpoint who has weapons. That is the first step towards a tyranny.

     •  Reply
  5. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  almost 11 years ago

    At least he recognizes it is the high magazine capacity SHORT BARREL AND CONCEALABLE firearms the NRA defends that are most favored by “criminals”, NOT long rifles.

    BtW, as noted elsewhere, I once arrested my “most dangerous” criminal BECAUSE he had a loaded and concealed weapon where it was illegal to have it. Had I and my partner not been alert, he likely would have killed at least one, if not both of us, at a “routine” car stop.

    Yes, criminals are such because the disregard the law, but if the law allows, instead of forbids, law enforcement from taking reasonable actions to regulate weapons and possession thereof, we’d all be safer and better off.

     •  Reply
  6. Jollyroger
    pirate227  almost 11 years ago

    l = leftr = right

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Mike Lester