DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Gun rights advocates rally at state capitols across U.S.

Neat.

You own a car? Perhaps your neighbor should report you for speeding. You would need to give up your car, and have no right to buy another one until you can prove to the sheriff or a judge that you weren't speeding. Fair enough?


Sure, I'm being a bit extreme here....but maybe not?

See, you said this, also:

That IS what it will come down to.

I'm all for safety, no doubt. Background checks are great. I have no problem with them. But what is a mental health back ground check? Who determines?

Actually having people follow through on the laws that are in place now before creating new laws.

Security guards and metal detectors as used at airports, courthouses, sporting events etc... Are the children less important than senators and congressmen protect children the way you protect them.

Don't waste our time building strawmen arch.

I don't know what a mental health background check is. What I am evaluating is how our solutions work (or fail to) against solutions elsewhere that demonstrate greater success. Other Western countries have mass shooters at significantly lower levels than we do. It's not very close actually. What those countries tend to have in common is proactive approaches. Licensing, training, and evaluation chief among them. I would have no problem demonstrating my competence with a gun. I consider myself a reasonably good shot. Why we insist on having as few restrictions as possible to deadly weapons flies in the face of logic. Age limits, smaller magazines, and banning rifles because they look scary aren't real solutions. Gun owners know this. I want non gun owners to realize it as well. I also want both sides to realistically evaluate solutions.

Metal detectors are another reactionary solution. It would do little to prevent the madman from acquiring a scoped rifle and picking off kids in the parking lot. Security guards are OK but to be effective we would need so many guards that we would increase the state budget by large amounts. 1.7million students with 1 guard per 30 kids means 2.6 billion per year or more in salary alone, much less equipment and training. It makes no sense. We need to focus on access.

No straw man here.

Give me solutions that will solve the problem.

We could do like Japan. (do I need to link to there requirements again?) Is that what we need? No rifles other than air rifles (I read that as bb or pellet guns), no handguns, only shot guns? Can't buy new shells without taking your empties to the ammo store?

Give me solutions that work. I'll listen.

In the mean time, what are new laws going to do? It's already illegal to use a firearm in the commission of a crime. It's illegal to murder. Etc etc etc.

New law? Law breakers don't care. Criminals don't care.

It WILL come down to money, though, at some point in time. Could be a $100 (or $1000) fee per gun per year kind of thing. Could be a "required to have a 1 million dollar insurance policy per gun owned" kind of thing.

What happens then? I turn in my somewhere between 1 and 50 guns. Bad guys? They don't care.

I'm not saying 'don't do anything', but I SURE am saying 'don't do something just to say you did something'.

And I need to say this also. I did very well for, perhaps a week, in not chiming in on politics - or anywhere, really. And tonight I got suckered in - or, pulled in. My fault. My bad.

This is my big concern with the notion that we have heard in the past that somebody was on the no-fly list or the terrorist watch list.. and that those folks should be immediately disqualified from buying a firearm... there is no exact definition of what those require. there is no due process to be placed on those lists, it's fairly arbitrary... and people who are placed on those list aren't even notified so that they can fight it if they want...

Comparing gun control to cars is straw manning. At the very least, I'm not gun ignorant, so I don't need in place comparisons

I have proposed proactive solutions that in other jurisdictions have shown actionable results. Just because you wish to play proof of repeated assertion does not make my proposals invalid. You are just choosing to ignore them. I am not saying "just do something." I'm basing my proposals on other jurisdictions and their success rates.

You are also repeating the often loved (but wrong) lawbreakers paradox:

• Law-abiding citizens obey the law
• Criminals are lawbreakers, and thus do not obey the law
• Laws impose restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them
• Laws, therefore, only hurt law-abiding citizens

Without exception, every single law can be failed by this paradox. Let's get rid of DUI's. Let's get rid of all murder laws since people still commit murder. Let's get rid of jails altogether. Rape laws? Only criminals break them! Are you seriously proposing this? I don't think you are, so lets drop the illogical paradox argument. Laws work. Do they work 100% of the time? No. But they allow victims to seek retribution in the criminal justice system, and they enforce a cost-benefit analysis of all but the most hardened criminals (or crazies) to discourage behavior. To argue against creating laws to stop bad behavior goes completely against why criminal laws are meant to exist in the first place.

I understand that some of the proposals I put in prioritize human life over expediency. That in yours (and my case as well, since I'm a gunowner) that I would have to spend more time to acquire a firearm. But we have to be willing to overturn all stones in order to improve ourselves, to create the best environment we can hope to create for ourselves and others. If that means evaluating laws (even old ones) in the face of new threats or concerns, we cannot submit ourselves to some idea of dogma, to pray at the altar of 2A as something ordained from a higher power. We have to look at all laws, constitutional or otherwise, with a critical eye. The supreme court does it with practically every case they take.

Lawbreakers Paradox.

So you're admitting no new gun laws would help.

Lets all make a law banning impure thoughts.

Waste O Time.

Stricter punishments would would help more.

We as a Nation don't even enforce the gun laws we already have!

Using a gun in the commission of a crime is a mandatory 5 years.
Judges plea that one away like it means nothing.

Lock em up!

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%) and those in prison for possessing, using or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Recidivism_rates

I said nothing about rearrest rates.
I am talking about committing a crime with a gun and how Judges throw those charges out on plea agreements all the time.

Judges support appropriate and fair penalties for serious and violent offenders that are based on the nature and severity of the crime, the offender’s characteristics and criminal history, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. However, in general, judges object to the abolition of their discretion as the neutral arbiter of justice under mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and the shifting of that discretion to the prosecutors through their authority to charge a defendant with a crime and to negotiate a plea and/or a sentence.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pridata/Studies/Mandatory_Minimum_Senteces_Briefing.htm

And yet I pointed out that those who DO go to prison for it end back up in prison over 70% of the time.

Let me fill you in on something. If a prosecutor has a slam dunk case, they don't plea bargain. Only when they charge criminals with far more than they can actually convict them of do they plea bargain. And BTW - Judges aren't involved in the plea agreements. They are struck between the prosecutor and the defense.

So you lock them up again. Try to stay on topic.
Existing laws are not being followed yet people here are calling for new laws.

Waste O Time.

Send the criminals to Australia! They won't commit crimes there they made new laws.

Yes and if memory serves me, those 5 mandatory years for committing a crime with a gun are supposed to be ADDED onto the sentence.

Judge gives you 5 years for robbing the store and another 5 years if you used a gun.

I'm on topic 40. The call for "lock them up" hasn't been working. When all you do is lock criminals up with other criminals you just continue the process of breeding more criminals. Without at least some amount of rehabilitation you accomplish nothing.

Prosecutors are elected. They are nothing more than politicians. They want a high conviction rate. It sells to voters. They don't have to get a conviction on what they were charged with just so long as they get a conviction on something. This leads to a TON of plea bargains.

If you wish to actually get strong convictions the political element has to be taken out of the prosecutors job. There job should be about strong convictions and sentences and not getting re-elected.

So how would passing more gun laws help? Even if you take away their right to legally buy and own a gun they can get one illegally so what good does the law do?

The irony of this statement is off the charts.

I'm not sure how you arrived at those questions from my post? I haven't advocated for more gun laws.

The only law I would be in favor of is banning bump stocks. For one thing it isn't a gun so it is not protected by the second amendment. Secondly it is, as of now, a legal way to make a legal weapon illegal.

The majority of my post was actually in concern with harsher punishment for existing laws and how getting politics out of the prosecutors office would help that.

The part you actually quoted was simply how we may be able to hold down the recidivism rate of criminals which would help us in prison costs and may actually give criminals a better chance to succeed upon leaving prison which I think would be helpful to all of us.

Never used a bump stock or know how much closer it makes a semi auto to an automatic rifle. As I understand it's already illegal to modify a gun to an automatic. Not sure how true I will look into it but read that someone can make a bump stock using a 3d printer.

Maybe I misunderstood your post I just meant if the laws and punishments in place are not working how would making new laws help? Not trying to argue with you.

I see your point with the politics and prosecutors and will look into that further thanks for the reply.

And then this from you:



(Talk about straw manning?)

No. I wasn't proposing that, and you know it. In fact, I'm fairly certain I didn't suggest getting rid of any gun laws. Did I?


You stated something about having to spend more time to acquire a fire arm. Okay. What's that do? I'm asking, because I'm not aware, perhaps you are - how many shootings occur on the same day, week, month of someone legally acquiring a fire arm?

Let's do a better background check. How often do you need to be re-checked? Yearly? I'll use you as an example. You apparently legally purchased an AR-15 a while ago. Have you passed any mental competency check since then? Who's to say you won't go off the deep end tomorrow?

I am sure you find it cute and entertaining to act as dense as a bucket of rocks, but it just makes you appear ignorant. I'd suggest knocking it off.



Stick to the subject at hand. I never said those laws aren't working. Quite the opposite in fact.



If mass shooters kill themselves, what punishment do we have to deter their behavior? I am unaware of a stronger penalty than death, and mass shooters routinely dole out the punishment themselves, at the end of their own barrel. This argument that we need stronger punishments is weak. We need proactive measures to help keep guns out of mass shooters hands.

It seems Vambo strives to be as much of a caricature as his avatar.

It's not a strawman to me because I'm not directly asking you to defend DUI laws. I brought them up because in your post you made the widely false claim that laws don't work. I was merely itemizing why I think making the argument "laws dont work" is silly.



I know you weren't, just making sure, and I know you haven't proposed repeal of any laws to my knowledge.



To be clear, when I say take more time I don't mean a waiting period. I think waiting periods are somewhat arbitrary. I just mean take more time as in it would be more work required on the citizens part to legally obtain and continue to possess a firearm.

To answer your questions, I did not have to pass any sort of wellness exam to purchase my AR-15 (or my Marlin that I purchased on the same transaction), nor have I had to pass any exam since. The only person who could probably say I'd go off the deep end tomorrow is my wife I'd wager. I know you know the answers to these questions as an Ohio gun owner, who has gone through the transaction process.

I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to exercise their right to own a gun, that it would not be an infringement upon such rights for there to be some proactive measures to ensure that ones right to own a gun wouldn't be putting other peoples right to life at risk. It's a variation of the classic "your right to punch ends when you hit my face" argument. Wellness testing, interviewing with law enforcement, making sure no crimes were committed after the gun purchase and the time of renewal testing, that sort of thing. It has been demonstrated to be effective in other jurisdictions.

Well if your best argument is personal attacks I'm done with you.

What part of this do you not get?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

infringe-
1- Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)
2- Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

1) The irony of the guy best known for not understanding the definition of basic words and phrases, posting a copied and pasted definition with a "what part don't you understand?"

2) This is the first time I can recall 40 copying and pasting a definition since the time he - in a flailing effort to stick with his claim that the federal government should ban blowjobs - copied and pasted the first Google result for sodomy, carefully omitting the parts that proved him wrong

3) he purposely left off "well-regulated" because it would wilt his definition-based argument

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I love how 40 is so happy-go-lucky in his being completely oblivious as to what the adults are actually discussing.

A couple of nights ago, I brought up how weird and creepy it was when he once called a rapist war criminal "tough" and "cool", and how he called the court jailing the rapist mass murderer "sissies".

40, as he always does, because he doesn't anticipate receipts, did his "FAKE NEWS! Never said that!" thing, and when the receipts got shown, and everyone mocked him and said "Jesus, 40, This is bizarre and creepy", he tried a sad attempt at own medicine, but he's not quite there on using Archives, so all he could come up with was a post where I talked about how I had to go to rehab for having a drug problem.

He even framed it with "oh yeah? I can use archives, too!"

It was the DawgTalkers version of George Costanza doing "Jerk Store"

That is really scary Vambo. There is no doubt the left is starting with the 2nd Amendment because once that amendment is gone the other amendments will soon follow.

It's not personal attacks when you try to be cute with schoolyard games. I have no recourse but to call you out on the behavior. I also did not personally attack you in any way via those quotes. I'm calling out your behavior. Big difference.