|
disturbedone5009 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
yeah thats what they should do. why should they be allowed to sit in a cell, get free food, tv, and even an education all on our tax dollar.
Janilenae2007 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
is the first
Janilenae2007 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
i agree i say increase what the death penalty covers ie rape child abuse and such and why were at it i say bring back gladiator fights to see who gets life in prison
Janilenae2007 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
well usually the criminal doesnt pay for the gun when he steals it from the shop or a home owner or trade for drugs
TexWhatever (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
typical reactionary nonsense. because i point out that one ammendment is redundant you have to go all hysterical to win your point. LAME! laws are changed all the time because they are no longer pertinent to society's direction and standards. the second ammendment is constantly used as a hobby horse by the gun lobby so they can push their selfish interests over those of the rest of the community. it isn't good enough that kids and the innocent should bear the brunt of this.
Atomsmasher777 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Democrat leaders won't discuss gun-control.Repubs that don't understand that are living in the past.
Atomsmasher777 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
After the Virginia Tech massacre, Democrats did NOTHING and said NOTHING regarding gun-control. Another reason they got my vote on Nov 4th.
paceac (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The first 10 ammendments are all over 200 years old. Why not get rid of the first ammendment? Who are you to say we still need freedom of speech, press and religion. Oppression by government or invasion by foreign country isn't out of date so the need for the 2nd ammendment still stands.
paceac (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
So you are suggesting that even though the DC murder rate went up, the number of murders with firearms didn't increase? Even still, what difference does it make whether the murder weapon used was a firearm or not? The point is that a victim armed with a firearm could defend themself against an attacker with a bat or knife or whatever.
mmmaps (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Call me naive, but I'd rather take the guns away from the criminals.Of course that would mean less money for the arms industry, but hey. |
