Are we making a rational argument?

[NETim]

Hey, when you're given material like "It was B.S." there isn't much to work with. As for the precedent, I believe CC and others have already handled that fairly well.

Interesting. I was not aware that following the Constitution was considered kowtowing to people who would strip you of your rights. That one would think so is rather telling, IMO.

And you feel that compromise is following the Constitution?

And speaking of "compromise", I have yet to hear Biden Tactical or any other "crime fighter" offer me anything in return for their proposals. Still not getting this whole "compromise" thing to begin with.

I lose. They win. That's not "compromise" in my book.

[FNFAN]

These are not good. They serve the continued effort to demonize guns and their usage, and by extension, their owners:

Nope. Not demonizing guns in any way shape or form. Demonizing their usage in a crime. Setting a clear message that weapons are only to be used for lawful pursuits and culling the herd of criminals.

Connecting the sentencing of a crime with the tool used is not just.

How is it not "just?" Use of a weapon in a crime raises the stakes exponentially and presents added hazard to society above and beyond the base crime. Many states currently have enhancements for use of a weapon. What I'm after is a "no, BS, no lets make a deal" clear cut notice that if you commit a crime with a firearm it's unacceptable to society and you will, with no doubt or ambiguity, serve a large portion of your life in prison. Enhancements are often not filed as part of a plea arrangement or they run concurrent with the base charge.

Such policies also have a potential to really hang up a CCW holder who gets embroiled in a less than ideal shoot.

Gotta have a great mouthpiece to have self defense raised as an affirmative defense while in the commission of one of the crimes listed.

[Drang]

How is it not "just?" Use of a weapon in a crime raises the stakes exponentially and presents added hazard to society above and beyond the base crime. Many states currently have enhancements for use of a weapon. ...

Use a fully-automatic weapon in a robbery -- unaware that the AK has been modified -- and do more time for what is essentially tax evasion than for the robbery.

The problem with "no alternative" penalties is that, like "three strikes and you're out" and other "zero tolerance" laws, they often result in charges being thrown out, rather than apply draconian punishment that doesn't fit the crime committed.

[tremiles]

Another possible side effect of a mandatory life sentence for a crime involving a firearm that would otherwise not have a life sentence is escalation of violence, IE... if a perp is going to get the same sentence for murder as an armed robbery without actually injuring someone, why leave witnesses?

I'm in no way suggesting that penalties for crimes shouldn't be severe, but I've seen no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that suggests minimum sentencing for violent crime affects violent crime.

[FNFAN]

Use a fully-automatic weapon in a robbery -- unaware that the AK has been modified -- and do more time for what is essentially tax evasion than for the robbery.

"A workman should know their tools" Use a firearm in a robbery and you deserve whatever you get, whether at sentencing or in the street getting tipped over by some uniform. Comes under the heading of "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

The problem with "no alternative" penalties is that, like "three strikes and you're out" and other "zero tolerance" laws, they often result in charges being thrown out, rather than apply draconian punishment that doesn't fit the crime committed.

Three strikes and the various habitual criminal statutes have taken lots of bad folks off the streets, interrupting what often appears to be a revolving door. As far as "draconian punishment not fitting the crime committed" I'll go back to the thread title: "Are we making a rational argument?" I suppose one could argue in favor of business as usual and and not increasing the punishment for the criminal use of firearms vs. reserving use of firearms for legal purposes. It's just an odd argument to make if you're trying to argue against further restrictions or attempting to actually reduce the incidence of firearms use in crime.

We're in the midst of a huge demographics shift towards the uninformed. November 6th proved that. If we get chain migration on top this shift, you'll see an end to what we've considered "traditional American values" until things get bad enough that the reset button gets pushed.

I'd suggest you pick a drum and start beating it. My stance is: "Punish firearms use by criminals, don't further restrict honest citizens" if yours is "Gosh, criminals have the right to use firearms too" then God Bless your little heart.

[LOKNLOD]

Nope. Not demonizing guns in any way shape or form. Demonizing their usage in a crime. Setting a clear message that weapons are only to be used for lawful pursuits and culling the herd of criminals.

This is an ongoing issue with all the talk of "gun crimes" and "gun violence" as if the guns themselves are somehow complicit in the event. When you say that a crime is worse, and therefore worthy of more punishment because a gun was used during its commission, you are applying a layer of morality to the gun and its possession.

If you can't demonize horrible things like rape and murder to the point people don't do it, do you think demonizing one particular method over another is going to work?

And even if it does work, is it some sort of victory to say some number of people were murdered this year, but thankfully not with guns?

So long as guns exist, and people are murdering each other, guns will be a viable tool for doing so.

How is it not "just?"

How can it be? Is murder more "murdery" if it is with a gun instead of other means? Is it more heinous or cruel?

Use of a weapon in a crime raises the stakes exponentially and presents added hazard to society above and beyond the base crime.

I still don't get why using a gun to hurt someone is some sort of +5 evil multiplier on an already criminal act.

What I'm after is a "no, BS, no lets make a deal" clear cut notice that if you commit a crime with a firearm it's unacceptable to society and you will, with no doubt or ambiguity, serve a large portion of your life in prison.

How about we just apply that same thought to "if you commit a crime" and leave the gun specific nonsense out?

What you propose is fixing a problem by adding layers to it. It's like dieting by trying to eat more of certain foods. To heck with that, just eat less food instead.

Gotta have a great mouthpiece to have self defense raised as an affirmative defense while in the commission of one of the crimes listed.

Or be a poor mouthpiece, who gets what should be a case of self defense turned into criminal charges. Now with extra mandatory sentencing since a gun was involved.

[David Armstrong]

And you feel that compromise is following the Constitution?

Depends on what the sissue is and what the compromise is. Not everything is a constitutional matter. If you'd care toget a bit more specific i might be able to respond more directly.

And speaking of "compromise", I have yet to hear Biden Tactical or any other "crime fighter" offer me anything in return for their proposals. Still not getting this whole "compromise" thing to begin with.

Which, of course, is part of the problem. To amny out there going NONONO instead of trying to direct the discussion and work to get something good for our side out of it.

I lose. They win. That's not "compromise" in my book.

Yep, that is what happens when one doesn't attempt to negotiate...one side wins, one side loses. Works out a lot better if we can do a win-win scenario, but it seems way too many don't want to try that.

[NETim]

Depends on what the sissue is and what the compromise is. Not everything is a constitutional matter. If you'd care toget a bit more specific i might be able to respond more directly.


Which, of course, is part of the problem. To amny out there going NONONO instead of trying to direct the discussion and work to get something good for our side out of it.


Yep, that is what happens when one doesn't attempt to negotiate...one side wins, one side loses. Works out a lot better if we can do a win-win scenario, but it seems way too many don't want to try that.

Let me know when they offer something. I'm all ears.

Biden's most recent remark, "no law-abiding American citizen in the United States of America is in any fear of having their Constitutional rights infringed in any way--none--zero" makes me wonder how he regards me though. I believe what the Obama admin has proposed does indeed infringe on my Constitutional rights.

Am I now a criminal?

I don't believe there's common ground with these folk.

[David Armstrong]

Let me know when they offer something. I'm all ears.

Maybe WE should offer something. That is the point, IMO. All our side seems to be doing is saying NONONO. Can't get much of a compromise that way.

I believe what the Obama admin has proposed does indeed infringe on my Constitutional rights.

Am I now a criminal?

Nope, and you won't be based on what Biden or Obama say, as they don't get to decide if something meets Constitutional muster or if you are a criminal. That is reserved for the judiciary.

[RoyGBiv]

Nope, and you won't be based on what Biden or Obama say, as they don't get to decide if something meets Constitutional muster or if you are a criminal. That is reserved for the judiciary.

Assuming I can afford the lawyer.