Do you support the Brady Bill?

#76
#76
lawgator1 said:
Its irrelevant to me. Race of the criminal or of the victim plays no role in the issue, in my mind.
Click to expand...
And I believe you, in a vacuum.

In actuality - it’s going to send droves of black men to prison.

We know this. We also know that won’t simply be ‘ok’ for many.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
And they are wrong. Black politicians, Dem or Republican, should not consider disproportionate effect on the black population of restrictions on criminals having guns. A criminal using a gun is a criminal using a gun. Period.
Click to expand...

Are you willing to take one step further? Many on the left will claim black communities are “overpoliced” and that we should defund the police.

Given the majority of homicide perpetrators and victims in this country are black (roughly 13% of the population), are you willing to say they’re under policied and would benefit from more policing in many of their neighborhoods?
 
#78
#78
85SugarVol said:
“Tough on Guns” laws will impact a disproportionate number of minorities.

All new 4 lane highway, straight to prison - for poor, black men in this country.

And the Left is just going to be ‘ok’ with that?
You yourself are just going to be ‘ok’ with that?
Click to expand...

The last 4 weeks have pulled back the curtain on the lefts true feelings about Jews. Maybe blacks will be next to see the light?
 
#80
#80
lawgator1 said:
Two ships. Passing. Nightime. All that jazz.

If they are convicted, by definition they are not innocent.
Click to expand...
I think he means

Mandatory insurance-absolutely an increased financial burden for having done nothing other than own a gun. (Constitutionally protected)
Liability punishments for stolen firearms-literally taking someone that was a crime victim and attaching them to the actions of others
Waiting periods-making people wait because...we don't know really but other people (not you) have done some bad things so it's on you too
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and hog88
#81
#81
hndog609 said:
I think he means

Mandatory insurance-absolutely an increased financial burden for having done nothing other than own a gun. (Constitutionally protected)
Liability punishments for stolen firearms-literally taking someone that was a crime victim and attaching them to the actions of others
Waiting periods-making people wait because...we don't know really but other people (not you) have done some bad things so it's on you too
Click to expand...

He knows, he's just deflecting.
 
#82
#82
hog88 said:
You're stance on mandatory insurance, prosecuting people for crimes committed with their stolen firearms, support of waiting periods all point to your support of punishing innocent people.
Click to expand...


You are drawing false equivalence.

I don't see why we cannot agree on this. A person commits a crime with a gun there ought to be a stiff prison sentence. If the criminals see that occurring, they will be incentives to stop committing crimes, especially using guns.

Makes perfect sense.
 
#83
#83
hndog609 said:
I think he means

Mandatory insurance-absolutely an increased financial burden for having done nothing other than own a gun. (Constitutionally protected)
Liability punishments for stolen firearms-literally taking someone that was a crime victim and attaching them to the actions of others
Waiting periods-making people wait because...we don't know really but other people (not you) have done some bad things so it's on you too
Click to expand...


No, I'm referring primarily to using the gun in the course of committing a crime. Let's start there.
 
#86
#86
lawgator1 said:
You are drawing false equivalence.

I don't see why we cannot agree on this. A person commits a crime with a gun there ought to be a stiff prison sentence. If the criminals see that occurring, they will be incentives to stop committing crimes, especially using guns.

Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

LOL

Yes, we agree that a person who commits a crime should be punished accordingly but I challenge you to find any statistics showing stiffer sentences have deterred crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#88
#88
lawgator1 said:
You are drawing false equivalence.

I don't see why we cannot agree on this. A person commits a crime with a gun there ought to be a stiff prison sentence. If the criminals see that occurring, they will be incentives to stop committing crimes, especially using guns.

Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
But it doesn’t work for drug crime. Stiff prison sentences. It doesn’t deter anything.

We know this. All it “does” is lock up poor, black people at alarming rates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#89
#89
85SugarVol said:
But it doesn’t work for drug crime. Stiff prison sentences. It doesn’t deter anything.

We know this. All it “does” is lock up poor, black people at alarming rates.
Click to expand...

How many people do you see slamming the brakes when that “fines doubled for speeding in work zone” sign is out?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#91
#91
hog88 said:
Don't get me wrong, there are people out there that legitimately have these disorders. I just believe that most that are diagnosed with them do not.
Click to expand...
Who's shooting up schools and shopping centers? It seems it's mainly folks with serious mental health problems. It's fine by me to block them from gun ownership.
Those convicted of violent crimes too, since they've demonstrated their tendency toward destructive behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#92
#92
hog88 said:
LOL

Yes, we agree that a person who commits a crime should be punished accordingly but I challenge you to find any statistics showing stiffer sentences have deterred crime.
Click to expand...
Anecdotal I know, but I had a family that targeted me at my home and my business for theft. He's in prison for the second time currently. I talked to him the last time after he was arrested. They've never caught him with a firearm. I asked the detective why he never had a firearm and he said there was sentence multipliers for crimes with a firearm and he knew that and didn't want that added to his sentence if he were caught.
 
#93
#93
EasternVol said:
Who's shooting up schools and shopping centers? It seems it's mainly folks with serious mental health problems. It's fine by me to block them from gun ownership.
Those convicted of violent crimes too, since they've demonstrated their tendency toward destructive behavior.
Click to expand...
Nope. Serve your time and become whole again. That includes gun ownership and voting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL, 85SugarVol, LouderVol and 2 others
#95
#95
EasternVol said:
Who's shooting up schools and shopping centers? It seems it's mainly folks with serious mental health problems. It's fine by me to block them from gun ownership.
Those convicted of violent crimes too, since they've demonstrated their tendency toward destructive behavior.
Click to expand...

Mostly azz holes who were put on medication they didn’t need and it screwed them up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and EasternVol
#96
#96
EasternVol said:
Who's shooting up schools and shopping centers? It seems it's mainly folks with serious mental health problems. It's fine by me to block them from gun ownership.
Those convicted of violent crimes too, since they've demonstrated their tendency toward destructive behavior.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but that’s too broad a brush.
If you’re a danger to society then you should be locked away. If you’re not a danger to society then you should get your rights back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and hog88
#98
#98
lawgator1 said:
The inherent problem is that, on the one hand we keep finding out after the fact of a mass shooting that the shooter obviously should not have been allowed to purchase firearms, while on the other hand no one can agree on how we figure that out and under what conditions before the shooting.

The political debate is that folks like myself believe that, given current circumstances we ought to err on the side of caution and if anything be slow to allow people to obtain and possess firearms, whereas others fear that such restrictions will go too far.
Click to expand...
What we keep finding out is that the system in place had them flagged but the system wasn't doing its job beyond that. at some point the government is liable for letting these people go on. its why they can't be trusted, whats the point of having the government if they aren't actually going to do their jobs. this is a greater issue than just guns, but I will leave it there. The solution to that problem can't be to just give the government more power, or to deny people their rights because its easier than the government doing its job. at some point the government has to be responsible, actually responsible, for its failures.

I keep bringing it up and it never gets addressed, its more than a 2A issue. Its also an issue of due process. in order to disarm these people you want to take away their due process. and whats worse is you want to allow it based on the word of a stranger who probably doesn't have a valid medical opinion or is just looking to SWAT someone via a red flag law.

Until the due process and private property aspects are addressed the 2A issue of disarming someone is a non-starter.

My compromise in the Maine shooting thread was I would rather you remove the person for some mental health check, but leave the guns at home. You are removing the person from their guns, but the guns remain technically in their possession at home, meaning the government doesn't actually take it away. We already have vetted process for detaining people, this would just come with a side of mental evaluation. Give it some time line, I think you can be detained up to 24 hours without being charged, I would be willing to expand that to 48 or 72, as long as the detaining at that point was by an institution. if they deem you dangerous, you can be held longer, while a judge makes a ruling, and then the guns get taken away. Unfortunately, then you have to violate their HIPPA rights, going back to this being more than a 2A issue, and report them to the FBI to make sure they can't buy more guns. If they are cleared by the mental evaluation then they are allowed to go home. Put a clock on their guns being taken away. maybe 90 days, at the end they get their guns back no questions asked. if the state or a person is still worried about them have them reevaluated and start the process and the 90 days over again. The second evaluation could happen during the first 90 days so they aren't getting their guns back. the same 90 days would apply as a cooldown between these evaluations so they can't be doxxed constantly by the local Karen. if the state fails and doesn't get the person re-evaluated in time, they get their guns back. with great power comes great responsibility.

the other compromise is the equal rights amendment. any restriction placed on any right is applied to all rights. if you really believe the guns are a big enough issue, put your money where your mouth is. any limitation on one, applies to all.

the next compromise would be to limit what civilians can legally buy, without going through the ATF, to what non-DOD government agencies can buy. and by DOD I mean the active military, so the Navy, Army, Marines, Chair Force, Coast Guard, and I guess Space Force. no scope creep to the various alphabet agencies. and yes anything the CIA and FBI can get their hands on so can a civilian. If the concern is weapons of war, then those weapons need to be isolated to only those responsible for making war. And this would also include any private security the various law makers have, including Secret Service.
 
#99
#99
BernardKingGOAT said:
I "liked" your post because it's funny. If the firearms are locked up and she's out of control without a key, you're cool. 5-6 days. In your fear mongering generalization, it's actually statistically insignificant.
Click to expand...
Mass shootings make up 2% of all shooting deaths. shooting deaths make up 1.5% of deaths. we are worried about a pretty statistically insignificant number already. 0.03% of deaths is apparently enough to deny people their rights.

if you take out suicides, as they are the majority of shootings, and not a risk to the public generally, you are talking an even smaller number, only about 0.002% of deaths.
 
#100
#100
Orangeslice13 said:
I’m sorry but that’s too broad a brush.
If you’re a danger to society then you should be locked away. If you’re not a danger to society then you should get your rights back.
Click to expand...
We know that's now how our system is set up though. A lot of borderline cons are released. If they're unarmed they're less of a threat.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top