Aren’t they lying though their pearly whites ,just trying to scare the sheepeople ?
The politicians know they can not do any thing to get or keep guns away from the criminals
Doesn’t this prove that ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
This is GQ, so the factual answer to your question is:
No.
The only thing you can do is reduce the number of guns overall and get better at taking illegal guns out of circulation. This will reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals and so they will be used less frequently.
I see no evidence that that will ever happen so continuing high levels of mass slaughters are the price you must be willing to pay.
*Sheepeople!
Sheepeople!
Sheepeople!
The guns are hard to get!
Sheepeople!
Sheepeople!
Sheepeople!
But you can ban them yet!*
Factual answer:
Sheepeople, like other lycanthropes, are immune to most bullets. Silver doesn’t work against them, an immunity that distinguishes them from the loup-garoux. Politicians trying to scare the sheepeople would do well to brandish a mighty pair of scissors, the only weapon capable of humbling a sheeperson; the lycanthrope will flee in shear terror.
Kumdang, I was wrong about the OP’s join date.
I thought that WAS the lie?
It is virtually impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But I believe that most gun killings are not carried out by criminals. By friends and family members, whether in a fit of anger or accidentally. And by self-appointed vigilantes.
And we probably cannot stop terrorists such as Dylann Roof.
Can we do anything to keep heroin and crack out of the hands of criminals? Would that make politicians liars for outlawing them?
This thread probably has a lifetime measured in minutes in GQ.
However, it would be interesting to know how many murders and attempted murders are committed by criminals (which I will define as those who have been convicted of, or have committed criminal acts) as opposed to otherwise ordinary innocent people, who use a gun in anger for the first time.
A significant amount of rhetoric in many countries is that guns are a problem when criminals get guns, and it is criminals with guns that you need to be worried about. Given the high rate of murders by and of family members or people otherwise known to the victims, this is probably not the only question.
From a simple logic point of view, the OP’s fifth amendment cite is at best amusing. It certainly doesn’t stop the US government preventing criminals from owning a gun. Only prevents the government charging a criminal with not registering it. The same logic would probably prevent a law requiring compulsory self registration of drug addicts. It still remains illegal for a felon to own a gun.
Could Al Capone have argued that since his income was derived from criminal proceedings that declaring it for tax purposes would be self incrimination? I doubt it, but to this non-USAian the thought is amusing.
My uncle was a sheeperson who nearly survived such an attack brought by Jimmy Carter himself. He didn’t make it, however. He was a died in the wool Republican.
Bleating conservatives.
[edit: also: well played!]
[Nitpick]
sheeple
[/Nitpick]
Wait, I thought the lie was not recognizing that a “well-ordered militia” meant a well-ordered militia.
Moderator Action
While there may be a factual thread somewhere buried in this mess, the OP’s choice of words poisoned the well from the start. Predictably, this thread isn’t staying within the factual bounds of GQ very well.
If you really want a factual question, try again without making broad disparaging generalizations against politicians and try to avoid using words like " sheepeople".
If you’d rather debate the subject, post in the Great Debates forum.
This thread is closed.