I have a simple resolution to the perceived gun violence issue, wanna hear it?

If someone is found guilty of a crime involving a gun they would be sentenced to a minimum 50 years of imprisonment and not be eligible for parole. This would accomplish two things:

1) Hold the guilty accountable for their actions. ( a good thing)

2) Have no impact on the law abiding citizens rights under the Second Amendment. (another good thing)

If the government, President Obama and crew's real objective is to curtail gun related crimes, as opposed to a covert attack on our Right To Bear Arms this would seem to ultimately accomplish that goal.

What do you think, I'm interested in your opinions....


Kevin: you suck real well thought out response NOT ....

Update 2:

Stopandt: Well it would sure stop me and at the very least would take the criminals out of circulation keeping the rest of us safer..

Update 3:

Legio: notice I said " convicted" I in now way suggested we circumvent a persons right to trial. It seems to me the rest of your rational is one of the main reasons we find ourselves in the situation were in, always finding some kind of excuse or rational for the poor underprivileged, drug crazed, homeless, gang member, ETC ETC. The list goes on for every crime that's committed, what I'm suggesting is enough of that BS hold the Bad Guy Accountable and leave the Law Abiding Citizen alone, what the hell's wrong with that concept????

Update 4:

John: I agree, that's my rational for making it a "Mandatory" fifty year minimum, that would take it out of their hands and hold the criminal accountable, and not allow Liberal Judges and Attorneys with their panties in a wad to manipulate the law...

Update 5:

Shane: Tend to agree with you regarding the Mental Health issues but, disagree on the background checks. We have enough laws in place regarding those and simply need to enforce current regulations. By the way in that regard how the hell did Pelosi dodge both those issues to qualify for her CCW permit... lol

5 Answers

  • Shane
    Lv 7
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    It's not a bad idea, but that won't stop most of the mass murders, because these people are loonies. We need to make it easier to force loonies threatening violence to mandatory psych evaluations, and if they fail, mandatory 30-day treatment. Too many loonies are able to get guns, as the Sandy Hook shooter, the Virgina Tech shooter, the Colorado shooter, and the Giffords shooter all did. Therefore, I also support mandating more background checks on gun purchases.

  • 8 years ago

    For some years now, there's been a Federal law that adds 5-10 years' federal time to whatever state time is involved in gun violence. We don't know if even that would work, since the Justice Department has been uninterested in prosecuting more than a tiny percentage of those cases. It really doesn't matter how many or what laws are on the books if they aren't used.

  • 8 years ago

    I'm opposed to mandatory sentencing for another reason- because everyone has a right to trial by jury and because mandatory sentencing overrides the principle of jury nullification. Every crime is unique and deserves individual consideration, with some requiring more severe and others less severe punishment. This is also a huge problem with the three strikes law, and leads to prison overcrowding.

  • 8 years ago

    I don't believe the threat of jail would intimidate people out of using guns. This has been proven that the purpose of laws is not to scare people out of committing crimes, but rather as you say, to hold them accountable and keep our streets safer.

    But yes, I would support your legislation just to get these people off the street.

    But I would like to see more done to prevent that first law-breaking event with the gun too.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Kevin
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    Gun.... and law.... all in one argument. DOWN WITH YOU YOU COMMIE.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.