Still having trouble answering if you support enforcement of existing gun laws?
Ok, specifically, do you support laws like the one in California (Armed and Prohibited Persons) that confiscate firearms from persons who are prohibited from possession?
Do you believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees ALL citizens the right to possess (bear) arms irregardless of their criminal history, anti-social behavior, or mental deficiency?
October 13, 2015 at 9:47 a.m.
Oviets,you say "Generally, gun laws should be enforced so long as they don't restrict law abiding citizens 2nd Amendment rights.
Would you propose that a insane, but otherwise "law abiding person" be allowed to purchase and possess a firearm?
Missing from your "law abiding" mantra is the notion of "responsible" citizen.
The Armed and Prohibited Persons program I mentioned earlier attempts to disarm persons who are not qualified (under law) by measure of law-less behavior or mental disability. I would agree that (according to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment) that their rights are being violated.
I might remind you that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment assures EVERYONE has a constitutional right to bear arms - including the non-law abiding and adjudicated incompetents.
The law, and the courts in upholding those laws, have determined that NOT EVERYONE can purchase and possess a firearm. Having criminals and mental defectives free to purchase and possess whatever guns they can afford is probably not a good idea.
So the question I pose to you is still the same one: Should existing gun laws be enforced?
October 12, 2015 at 9:01 p.m.
Ok, I'll go first.
The sentencing of a person to life without parole should be dependent on the circumstances of the crime. In some cases it is absolutely warranted, while in others not. Generally, almost all first degree murder cases a life with out parole but not so much in third degree cases.
What you are suggesting, where a judge and jury are prohibited from applying discretion, is very similar to Sharia law - in that the punishment is obligatory. (You don't happen to be Muslim?)
I think I've made it plain that I believe that firearms laws should be enforced,whether those laws apply to the purchase or possession or use of a firearm during a crime.
I take your response to lajoci that you don't think those firearms laws should be enforced.
October 12, 2015 at 6:06 p.m.
Still can't bring yourself to answer that simple question?
Should existing gun laws be enforced?
October 12, 2015 at 2:51 p.m.
Regardless of your feeling about the election of 2016...
What is your position on enforcement of EXISTING gun laws?
Are you for or against?
October 12, 2015 at 12:38 p.m.
@Happy @ oviets
I see that oviets is trying to backtrack on his earlier statement about enforcing EXISTING gun laws.
He won't give a direct answer to the question, "Do you believe that the existing gun laws should be enforced?
Gee, it's a simple yes or no. The fact that he is squirming away suggests that his answer is "no" - he just won't admit it.
October 12, 2015 at 11:29 a.m.
@oviets,I'm pleased to see that you have given a little more thought to your "remove from the gene pool" comment at #114.
Some of those 17,500 persons that you suggested ought be "removed" are persons who are subject to restraining order because they threatened someone. Putting them to death or life sentences seems a bit overly harsh.
My point in relating the original story was that there are reasonable efforts being made to seperate firearms from those who are prohibited. Isn't that what you and others want - real and actual enforcement of existing gun laws?
And yet, the NRA and the vast majority of the state and community "gun groups" are fighting against this enforcement of existing gun laws like this.
So which is it? Should existing gun laws be enforced or not?
October 11, 2015 at 10:07 a.m.
As of Jan 1 2015 the Armed and Prohibited Persons database in California contained 17,500 names.
Are you proposing that these 17,500 be either executed or given life sentences with parole? ("removed from the gene pool" are your words)
October 10, 2015 at 10:52 p.m.
Just then mention of the word confiscation causes some gun owners to become infuriated.
California (and to a lesser extent other states) have what the NRA calls "gun grabbing goon squads".
Because of gun registration in California, the State Police are able to match gun owners with those who are prohibited from having firearms.
In 2014 the CA State police investigated 7,573 possible matches, that resulted in the seizure (confiscation) of 3,286 firearms, and 277,325 rounds of ammunition, 1,888 magazines, 300 high-capacity magazines, 210 destructive devices.As of Jan 2015, the Armed and Prohibited Persons database still contained 17,479 prohibited persons associated with 34,868 firearms and 1,419 registered assault weapons.
The NRA and the gun-rights advocates are vehemently opposed to this, and are trying whatever they can do to stop this effort.
October 10, 2015 at 1:46 p.m.
It's not JUST the mass shooters who don't consider the consequence of their actions and carefully weight their possible sentences if caught and convicted.
The enraged husband doesn't calmly evaluate his potential sentence before he pulls the trigger on his cheating spouse. His all consuming anger precludes his thinking ability. So also the road rage shooter or the angry ex-employee and on and on.
I suspect that many murders are committed by people who are not thinking clearly so they don't either think or care about an "automatic life sentence". I also suspect that many murders are committed by people who "have nothing to lose" - so they don't really care about jail or injection.
I don't necessarily disagree that the consequence for murdering another should be severe, however I don't really see that as a significant deterrent that would change gun violence in America.
As a society, we need to try to address how to suppress the number of gun violence deaths. I'm not at all convinced that putting more guns on the street is a positive step forward.
October 10, 2015 at 1:08 p.m.