Obama Seeking to Shame 2A Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm aware of the boys-will-be-boys argument, and I'm not impressed by it.
Click to expand...
I suppose that's considered an acceptable mentality when it comes to grammar school fistfights, but grown adults don't have the luxury of taking violence casually. That certainly applies when we're discussing guns.

The problem lies in defining what sorts of violence apply, and in how the punishment is handled. I'm sure a lot of folks who supported the Lautenberg Amendment thought it was a good way to curb domestic violence, but it's resulted in a lifetime loss of gun rights for many for minor incidents.

I may be sounding like a broken record, but we have laws to punish people who use firearms in crime. We're simply not enforcing them.
 
Now, one of the particular dangers of alcohol consumption is drunk driving. In the early 1980's, Mothers Against Drunk Driving attacked the problem. They went after a specific behavior: the act of driving under the influence. They did not push for lowering speed limits, taxing booze, or restricting its sale. They simply lobbied for stricter punishments (and the enforcement) for a specific, destructive act.

The result was a dramatic decline in drunk-driving fatalities. I'd suggest we apply the same approach to crime involving firearms, but the government refuses to do so. Instead, we're asked to accept all sorts of peripheral restrictions on the law-abiding, many of which have been tried and which have failed to address the problem.
Click to expand...

This argument seems to be a pretty good parallel to what is going on now. Unfortunately, drunk driving isn't portrayed in movies and mass media as something inherently bad like guns are. I think this is by far the biggest obstacle to overcome before advocating for stricter punishment against people who break the current laws.

I could also see someone claiming that the current bill is more directed at mass shootings and that many of the shooters involved simply kill themselves after they have completed their deed. In that light, what would be the point of enforcing stricter punishment if it is not a deterrent for a suicidal maniac?

Please note that I do not particularly agree with those arguments as the amount of mass shootings ending in suicide are quite small, but I could see many people thinking that these are good arguments against what might be said. As always, it is better to be prepared for what others might think, say, or do before running our mouths about things that seem to be so sensitive in the public eye.
 
Tom Servo said:
The problem lies in defining what sorts of violence apply, and in how the punishment is handled. I'm sure a lot of folks who supported the Lautenberg Amendment thought it was a good way to curb domestic violence, but it's resulted in a lifetime loss of gun rights for many for minor incidents.
Click to expand...
I completely agree, which is why I'm suggesting a two strikes -- or three strikes, I think that would be fine -- approach to this. There's precedent for a less-than-lifetime ban in the way that drug offenses and restraining orders are handled. We have no problem with the notion that "criminals should not have guns," as applied to felons; I'm just suggesting lowering the bar for what counts, in this reckoning, as criminal behavior.

I worry more about the violent tendencies of someone with three convictions for misdemeanor assault than I do about those of someone with one felony conviction for shoplifting.
 
but we have laws to punish people who use firearms in crime. We're simply not enforcing them.
Click to expand...

Example (this just happened here last summer):

A felon that has made a living dealing drugs for several years was busted.

In the raid, local LE found a large quantity of dope in his safe along with almost a dozen guns. A few of which were considered the dreaded 'assault' rifles.

LE, was going to arrest felons wife as well but decided not to as felon told them she didn't know about anything. Felon claimed ownership to the dope, paraphernalia(bongs,pipes, burnt spoons, pop cans with burnt residue setting all over the house for the kiddies to play with) as well as all the guns.

After a couple days , 14 other drug dealers were arrested that all did business with the felon. Sounds great right!

The only problem is the felon never faced any gun related charges. Just dope charges.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how all this played out. Felon was clearly facing more time for the amount of guns he had in possession then the drugs so the guns were used as bargaining chips for names of felons drug contacts.


By the way...this felon is currently out walking the streets as I type this and will no doubt get back into some sort of crime as he has always did something illegal to support himself and has never held a job in thirty years.

Sadly, these deals happen all the time pertaining to guns. I don't blame the cop out on the street, I blame prosecutors as well as our court system for letting this type of plea bargaining get out of hand when guns are involved.

Many may say that the plea bargain made with this felon was worth it since it got other drug dealers off the street. I gotta ask, how long did it get them off the street for? Are they currently walking the street as I right this also due to some sharp attorney finding a 'T' that wasn't crossed in some form filed with the courts? Or are they currently walking the street due to 'overcrowding' at the jail as often happens?

I agree that we have come to a point with violent crimes involving guns that we do need something set up like Mothers Against Drunk Driving to monitor the court procedures for gun related cases same as MADD does with alcohol.

This above mentioned felon never went to a gun store to purchase his guns, he didn't go to a gun show to purchase them...and he wouldn't care of what kind of law was enacted as far as mandatory background check for legally purchasing firearms. He's gonna get them the same way he got the ones he was busted with and never charged with.... illegally.

It's really sad that the likes of Obama, Bloomberg, Feinstein etc. live in their ivory towers and claim to have the answers yet really, either don't have a clue of whats really happening out on the street or don't care but just want to promote their own anti gun campaigns to further their careers at the expense of our society.
 
Tom Servo said:
Now, one of the particular dangers of alcohol consumption is drunk driving. In the early 1980's, Mothers Against Drunk Driving attacked the problem. They went after a specific behavior: the act of driving under the influence. They did not push for lowering speed limits, taxing booze, or restricting its sale. They simply lobbied for stricter punishments (and the enforcement) for a specific, destructive act.

The result was a dramatic decline in drunk-driving fatalities. I'd suggest we apply the same approach to crime involving firearms, but the government refuses to do so. Instead, we're asked to accept all sorts of peripheral restrictions on the law-abiding, many of which have been tried and which have failed to address the problem.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right, Tom. I was in high school in the 1980s, and drunk driving & MADD was all over the news. My high school lost at least one student to a drunk driving accident from every graduating class for several years preceding my graduation year. I presume the next few years lost at least one each, as well.

MADD totally changed the legal landscape on DWI for Arkansas, as I'm pretty sure it did for many states. For example, before certain laws were passed, a prosecutor could reduce a DWI to reckless driving, for example. Now, to give everyone a standard of reference, under current Arkansas law Reckless Driving carries a penalty of something like $500 + up to 5 or 10 days in jail. (We also have a much less serious charge, Careless & Prohibited Driving, which is about a $200 fine, but if there was a reduction, Reckless seemed to be the preferred charge to which DWI was reduced.) Anyway, that reduction was not uncommon in the pre-MADD days. As it stands today, under Arkansas law, a person charged with DWI shall either plead to the charge, or be tried on it, and probation is prohibited. Period. As a prosecutor, I cannot modify the charge, cannot reduce it, give the defendant a Pass to Dismiss, give them probation. Either plead or be tried. A defendant with a charge of Aggravated Battery (meaning "with a weapon") can be put on probation, but a DWI defendant cannot! :eek:

And yeah, by focusing on that specific behavior (DWI), MADD was very successful in changing the laws, which IMO, has resulted in a significant decline in DWIs around the country.

Vanya said:
Tom Servo said:
I'd suggest we apply the same approach to crime involving firearms, but the government refuses to do so. Instead, we're asked to accept all sorts of peripheral restrictions on the law-abiding, many of which have been tried and which have failed to address the problem.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about something along these lines lately, which would involve treating violent behavior as the problem: taking it seriously, and making the consequences for gun ownership more severe than they are now. As I just wrote in another thread, the best predictor of violent behavior is a prior history of violence.

If we're serious about preventing violence, keeping guns out of the hands of violent people would be a good place to start. I'm thinking of something along these lines: in addition to the prohibition on felons from owning firearms, there could be a graduated system for people convicted of violent misdemeanors, so that a first conviction for, say, misdemeanor assault would carry a suspension of rights for perhaps three to five years, and two convictions (or three -- I'm not dogmatic about the details) would result in a lifetime prohibition.

I'm aware of the boys-will-be-boys argument, and I'm not impressed by it. If a someone commits a single violent misdemeanor, a "youthful indiscretion," that would have reversible consequences. If the behavior isn't repeated, his rights are restored. But if someone is convicted of a second or third such act, that's a pattern, and suggests that this is someone who's likely to repeat, and escalate, and shouldn't have access to guns.
[Flame suit on...]
Click to expand...
No need for the flame suit, V. I thinik that makes a great deal of sense. I think that we (as gun owners) need to just own up and admit that there are some folks who really shouldn't have guns. Then again, there are also some folks who commit some "youthful indiscretions," which need to have consequences, but those young folks (& it's usually young men) a chance to rehabilitate themselves. Criminal punishments are almost always dealt with on a graduated basis: X for a 1st offender, Y for a 2nd offender, Z for a third offender. For whatever reason, though, firearms prohibitions are included on a "yes-or-no" basis. Either you're prohibited or not.
 
Spats said:
For whatever reason, though, firearms prohibitions are included on a "yes-or-no" basis. Either you're prohibited or not.
Click to expand...
As I wrote above, that's not necessarily the case for restraining orders (which can be lifted, in which case the prohibition goes away) or for illegal drug use (in that case, the criterion for prohibition is time dependent, based on the recency of a conviction or failed drug test).

So there are precedents for less-than-lifetime bans.
 
Last edited:
How the heck did I miss this one

537772_317882151655336_400425660_n.jpg
 
What else is new? Want to go through all the GOP and Democrat Presidents who have been lying to us?

If we are moving into cliche land - let's call it quits.
 
The number of presidents recently who haven't been shameful liars is very small. Few exist that don't use social issues in outrageous manners to divide the nation.
 
The number of presidents recently who haven't been shameful liars is very small. Few exist that don't use social issues in outrageous manners to divide the nation.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this. There is no comparison of the lies told by the current president and his administration to anything his predecessor said. Not even in the same ballpark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top