How, specifically? Aside from increasing prosecutions for lying on 4473 forms, what would you suggest? Increased prosecutions of felons in possession of a firearm? Something else?Originally Posted by wvincent
How, specifically? Aside from increasing prosecutions for lying on 4473 forms, what would you suggest? Increased prosecutions of felons in possession of a firearm? Something else?
Many times the felon in possession is the first to get bargained down or tossed. So why don't we go after that in earnest?
But you've missed my point. We already have enough guns laws on the books.
The root cause of this recent spate of shootings isn't the lack of gun laws. How many of the recent shootem' up assholes could have legally purchased a firearm? As far as I can tell, all but the last one.
So, it's not a gun or a lack of law's problem, it's a people problem. And that is waaaaaay out of my lane.
And I shall have the right and the ability to defend myself from these fucking misfits.
Iv'e said it before, and I will say it again, I am truly, truly sorry for the families of these victims suffering. It breaks my heart to see and hear it. BUT, all those dead bodies, even the children, DON'T trump my God given rights, endowed upon me by my Creator.
Last edited by wvincent; 09-05-2019 at 09:52 PM.
"And for a regular dude I’m maybe okay...but what I learned is if there’s a door, I’m going out it not in it"-Duke
"Just because a girl sleeps with her brother doesn't mean she's easy..."-Blues
How exactly do you enforce background checks in private?
Listen. People decide their own level of involvement in lawful society.
I drove 49 mph over the posted speed limit today. I know the consequences and the risks and I don’t care. I’m going to what I’m going to do.
The chance of getting caught and then punished to the fullest degree of the law are low.
Now imagine how much harder it is to get one to consider the law if they already have little to lose and a low chance
Of being found out.
Last edited by Duke; 09-05-2019 at 09:58 PM.
I saw an good quote today on a Twitter feed about their "idea" of gun control.
It was paraphrasing:
We don't want to ban guns or take away your guns. We just want to make sure you don't have the wrong kind of guns, too many guns or too much ammunition. But we don't want to take any guns away.
This wasn't a jest post. This was a serious post by someone trying to allay someone else's fears about "gun control".
They really don't understand anything about guns, they don't want to know anything about them, they just want to "feel safe" which to them means, NO GUNS.
Unfortunately any concession will just result in them wanting another and another until all "assault weapons, fully semi auto, assault shotgun, sawed off shotguns, sniper rifles, Saturday Night Specials, combat handguns, police weapons, cop killer bullets, armor piercing ammo, lead ammo, hollow point bullets, Black Talons, Street Sweepers" and anything else that sounds even remotely dangerous or has ever been used in a movie, TV show or documentary taken off the streets.
Then, they will find something else like knives, baseball bats, crowbars, glass bottles, or something else to be afraid of and expect that to be banned.
All this while eating/drinking/smoking/driving/taking/doing things that will have several orders of magnitude greater chance of harming them multiple times over and complaining any time anything is done that might even raise the price on those things.
For too long we have allowed “compromise” to be defined as “We’ll give you one, so you don’t take two.” Most of the proposed “commonsense” gun laws have no rational basis whatsoever—“assault weapons” used in a minuscule percentage of shootings, no pretense at justifying 10 round magazine restrictions vs. 12 or 15 or 20 or whatever, etc. ANY proposal for additional laws should demand 1) a strict scrutiny justification as to how the law will achieve its stated goals while still causing the minimal infringement on a Constitutional right second to only that of free speech, assembly, press, etc., and 2) legitimate compromises that will advance the interests of law-abiding, responsible gun owners.
If the gun control crowd is willing to bring both of these to the table, I’d be willing to listen. Otherwise, the only thing acquiescence gets us is a short period of time before they’re back, demanding more. No thanks, or more succinctly, fuck that.
Compromise nothing. Enforce the existing laws.
Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for that dumb bastard.
I think lawful behavior that makes you uncomfortable, because of what someone *might* do is an absolutely terrible basis for changes in law or policy.
If you don't want to sell privately, don't sell guns privately. It's your decision to do that or not, that's this weird thing called freedom.
You're falling for the 'DO SOMETHING!!1!!!one!!!!' fallacy. Keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited persons will only occur if:
-We magically remove or with overwhelming force from the state remove every privately owned firearm in the country (not likely)
-We magically remove or with overwhelming force from the state remove everyone's hands. Easier than collecting all the guns, but even the most die-hard lefty likes their hands (no pun intended)
Make Project Exile the law from coast to coast
https://www.crimesolutions.gov/Progr...ls.aspx?ID=413
Program Goals
Project Exile was a crime reduction strategy launched in 1997 in Virginia, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as a result of the spike in violent crime rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During these years, Richmond, Virginia consistently ranked among the top 10 U.S. cities in homicides per capita. Specifically, in 1994, Richmond was ranked 2nd for homicides per capita, with a homicide rate of 80 per 100,000 residents. Overall, the goal of the project was to deter felons from carrying firearms and decrease firearm-related homicides through both sentence enhancements for firearm-related offenses and incapacitating violent felons (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer 2005).
Program Activities
Essentially functioning as a sentence enhancement program, Project Exile targeted felons who were caught carrying firearms (i.e., felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm [FIP]) and prosecuted them in federal courts where they received harsher sentences, no option of bail, and no potential for early release. Prior to Project Exile, FIP cases could be processed in state courts. Through increasing the expected penalty for firearm-related offenses, Project Exile sought to deter both firearm carrying and criminal use. Additionally, through sentencing more violent offenders to longer prison sentences, the program sought to reduce crime through incapacitating violent felons (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer 2005; Arends 2013).
In addition to incapacitating offenders, the program sought to deter would-be offenders. To make the public aware of the sentence enhancements surrounding firearms, a broad “outreach” campaign was implemented using media outlets. The public campaign was implemented to increase community involvement and to send a message of zero-tolerance for firearm offenses. The goal of the message was to indicate a “swift and certain” federal penalty for firearm offenses. Advertised in both electronic and print media outlets, the campaign was featured on city buses and business cards displaying a specific message: “an illegal gun will get you five years in federal prison” (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer 2005).
Last edited by Cypher; 09-06-2019 at 06:22 AM.
Agreed, 100%. I doubt that we'd ever see that, though.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
Of course we won't. Because it would actually work and they wouldn't be able to push their gun control agenda
Last edited by Cypher; 09-06-2019 at 07:49 AM.
Reply With Quote