He wrote an anti-gun piece for the Huffington Post,and he was factually incorrect on current gun laws as well as the founding fathers. He clearly is not up on American history,but he pretends to be.
I'm a lawful gun owner,but he said there's no reason for a person in the city to have ammo.I take his words as a personal threat to me.
Dog's no more a threat to your lifestyle than the man on the moon. He doesn't have the power to change the laws. And, it will be a cold day in hell before congress takes away our second amendment. Ain't gonna happen.
I never saw the speech. I don't know exactly what he said regarding our founding fathers and not carrying guns. Those two sentences shouldn't be in the same paragraph. But it doesn't matter, because he can run his mouth about it all day long, it won't amount to a hill of beans. Congress will not take away our right to bear arms. Dog's been enforcing the law successfully without a gun for YEARS. I understand his passion. He has just as much right to convey his thoughts on not carrying guns just as much as we have the right to convey our want for people to have to right to bear arms. I support the right to bear arms.
I'd have to see the speech in order to understand where he went wrong.
First of all, it's in HuffPo, so you know what the angle of the article is going to be long before going in. He does ramble a little bit, but after reading the article, I feel that Dog has it half right.
We do need to change the way we handle the severely mentally ill in order to reduce the mass shootings like Aurora, Virginia Tech, Tucson, and Sandy Hook. His ideas for inner city violence, however, are utterly ridiculous. All you have to do is look at the ongoing violence in the highly "gun controlled" city of Chicago. Over the past weekend there were seven dead and nearly fifty wounded from guns obtained illegally. Obviously the strict laws don't help. Law abiding citizens are simply unarmed targets. Dog's solution would be to allow the citizens to have Tasers and hope that you can outdraw the criminal who's carrying a gun. Seriously?
I don't think that Dog really knows what the gun laws really are. He mentions gun permits,but not carry permits.Most states don't require you to have a permit to buy or possess a firearm,he seems to be suggesting that they do.He doesn't even address the current proposed gun control laws in the house. Does he think that he's too good to even mention the current laws?
so true he's a felon and did time, so did nasty fat mouthed Beth they treat everyone like pieces of *beep* they really believe they are better then us all even their kids are either dead from running from cops and drugs or in jail or drunks.... and try to beat on cops .
>> All you have to do is look at the ongoing violence in the highly "gun controlled" city of Chicago. <<
Which is surrounded by communities where you can still buy guns. Gun control won't make a dent on a city-by-city basis. Only when we do it like the Australians will we see some benefit.
Kinglet,how then do you explain Russia's extremely high homicide rate then? Handguns are banned in Russia,shotguns are registered,and you can't buy a rifle until you've owned a shotgun for five years, but Russia still has a homicide rate much higher than the U.S.
What "benefit" has Russia's strict gun laws done for them?
Which is surrounded by communities where you can still buy guns.
The U.S. is bordered by Mexico where you could STILL buy guns even if guns were outlawed in every state.
Only when we do it like the Australians will we see some benefit.
That's because Australia is an island moron. To smuggle guns there is extremely difficult because the borders are secured as opposed to driving down to Juárez or just finding your friendly neighborhood gang member who has a stash ready to go.
reply share