|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 15, 2012, 01:16 PM | #51 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
Aguila Blanca,
So you think that it would be unfair to send up a check forger for a non-violent crime? Simple. Everyone knows that check forgery is a gateway crime, lol. Same standards for non-violent crime. Make it so hard to get back out that they are forced to consider this before committing their white collar crime. If that is unfair then perhaps the check forger should consider how unfair it was to forge another mans check. My system would have prevented the crime you described because they would have been still locked up. My system may have some holes in it, but would be better than what we have now. There are some people who may consider lesser crimes because of lesser sentences possible, but that would go away if they had the potential to do as much time as murderers and such. If one had the good fortune to be released and consequently committed a worse crime, then he would never be released again, all things being taken into account. |
October 15, 2012, 01:37 PM | #52 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
SS215, I don't have time to go through the whole thread responding to every post that you've made, so I'll stick with my thoughts on the OP. This is the first chance I've had to respond to it. With that said, I will try to phrase my response in such a way as to avoid the appearance of an attack. This post is certainly not intended as one.
With that said, many of the measures that you propose are the very ones that are often pushed by the anti-2A crowd as "compromises." They are often couched in a "let's compromise and have some reasonable regulation on guns" sort of way. One of the many problems with that is that gun control has never been a compromise. The term "compromise" means that each side gives up something in order to reach an agreement. With gun control, what does the gun control side give up? Nothing, that's what. Take a look at the post from a blog called "The LawDog Files" entitled "OK. I'll Play." For your convenience, I'll post the section that illustrates the point. (I claim no authorship in the following. Mods, if this violates the copyright rules, please accept my apologies and feel free to edit.) Quote:
Source: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-ill-play.html I, for one, think that the above passage does an excellent job of illustrating the problems with "compromising" on the issue of gun control. Over the last almost 100 years, gun owners have been forced to compromise over and over. What did they get out of the compromise? A reduction in their rights, that's what. What did the anti-2A folks give up? Nothing. That's not compromise. That's conquering. Quote:
Quote:
Second, there is no data (of which I am aware) that indicates that waiting periods have ever deterred a crime. On the other side, though, there are stories of folks getting killed during the waiting period. Third, one of the beautiful things about rights is that you don't have to vote on them. The fact that some person, somewhere could, in theory buy a gun and use it for a heat-of-the-moment crime is really not a reason for everyone to have to wait to get their guns. Following that reasoning, we could put waiting periods on cars, bleach, gasoline, diesel fuel, fertilizer, crowbars, baseball bats, lead pipes, kitchen knives, belts, lighters . . . and just about anything else. If someone walks into the LGS, fuming and ranting, swearing up a blue streak and wants to buy a gun right now, the LGS is within its rights to decline to make the sale. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||||||
October 15, 2012, 01:41 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Being the scholar that I am, I have a suggestion to the OP. Many of the measures you suggest have been analyzed or tried. There is a large legal, criminological and psychological professional literature. One might do research on these ideas.
Google scholar gives easy access to the materials. Books by Kopel and Kleck review the issues quite well. It is easy to spout off ideas that have seeming surface validity but have already been tried or analyzed. I would also caution about language, I have seen words that are not appropriate. Also, if you start a thread and get beat up in it, don't ask us to delete it. It's our ball and you can't take it home. We might close a thread based on our evaluation. The actual proposals have been fully analyzed here, so no need for me to repeat. Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 15, 2012, 01:59 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Spats, that lawdog excerpt is one of the best takes on firearms regulation and supposed compromise I've seen in a while. Unfortunately now I want cake...
|
October 15, 2012, 02:14 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
October 15, 2012, 02:20 PM | #56 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
A basic tenant of negotiation is, "Don't bid against yourself."
In the last several years we've been able to notably rehabilitate gun rights in a number of significant ways. At times, however, to get something that was considered very important and desirable, we've had to "pay a price." For example, the political realities were, in a number of States, that to get a "right" to carry a concealed firearm, we've had to agree to licensing and training requirements. That is the nature of political horsetrading. The political and legal realities will most likely continue to be such that we will be able to make gains on some points but not, perhaps in exchange, on others. But one ought to be judicious about discussing details in public.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
October 15, 2012, 02:29 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
I'm a little late to this party, but I'd like to add my $0.02 about the mental health aspect.
Quote:
Accusations of "insanity" have historically been used many times to punish and lock up citizens who politically oppose a powerful leader and/or political party. After all, one WOULD have to be insane to criticize the illustrious leader of our glorious revolution!* One major advantage of this strategy is that, compared to rigging an entire judicial system, it may be easier to manipulate the opinions of a handful of mental health professionals- sometimes by bureaucratic intimidation, and sometimes by issuing spurious mental health credentials to dependable political lackeys. Furthermore, merely being the object of a mental health inquiry carries a considerable stigma in many cultures, and the person is often stripped of a valid means of appealing the decision almost by default; after all, how can one logically object to his/her situation if he/she is not of sound mind? In the past, I have advocated some sort of mental health "watchlist" that could be implemented on the firearms background-check level. The problem is that IMHO in order to have the desired effect, the people doing the red-flagging would have to be truly objective, which requires REAL and PERMANENT consequences for specious, accidental, or malicious positives- e.g. being stripped of a medical license, or jail time. After much consideration, I don't think it can be done properly, and I've more or less withdrawn my support for the idea. *This comment is meant purely as sarcastic commentary about the type of language often used by totalitarian regimes. It is NOT IN ANY WAY meant as political commentary aimed at any U.S. politician or organization!
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; October 15, 2012 at 02:33 PM. Reason: Minor reword... |
|
October 15, 2012, 03:00 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
Our constitutional rights have been trampled on by both federal and state government. They are constantly trying to trample on them more and more.
Why would we bargain with government and give up more of our rights, we are living under unconstitutional laws now. Year by year our freedoms and rights are being taken from us, why, because our government thinks they know whats best for us. The government cannot protect us and the police cannot protect us because they have been laid off and their jobs cut through budget reductions etc.. We have to be able to protect ourselves and our families, there is no one else that can do it. I would not negotiate away any more of my freedoms or rights. We have too many gun laws now and most of them, if not all of them should be repealed. |
October 15, 2012, 03:04 PM | #59 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
I'm old enough that when the whole criminal justice system was taught to us in grammar school (or maybe it was junior high) the theory was still that a criminal was convicted, went to prison, "paid his debt to society," and was then released. Put very simply, if the person's "debt" has been "paid" by a prescribed period of incarceration, why do we then continue to punish the person by denying them FOR LIFE the fundamental human right to self defense? Especially if the crime was a non-violent ("white collar") crime in which nobody was injured (physically) and nobody was even threatened? |
|
October 15, 2012, 03:11 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Ah, folks - we are off on tangents. The OP has been thoroughly discussed.
Thus, it's time for a CLOSE. But thanks for the very thoughtful commentaries from many posters. GEM
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|