Trooper said:
So you want to craft a law that can be used to euthanize mentally ill people, drug users, drug dealers, most young black men, Antwan Fisher, and millions democrats.
Do you prefer gas chambers or firing squads?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
What can be done to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms easily?
- Thread starter KoopaKGB
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
So you want to craft a law that can be used to euthanize mentally ill people, drug users, drug dealers, most young black men, Antwan Fisher, and millions democrats.
Do you prefer gas chambers or firing squads?
Quick point, using myself as the example. What do you think keeps me from owning a firearm? Is it because I don't have access to them? Or is it because I choose to follow the law, whether or not that law is proper or just? If you honestly believe it is the former, I have a rather marvelous bridge for sale, it connects the borough of Brooklyn to the Island of Manhattan. I have been looking to unload it for quite some time, and I could let you have it for an incredibly low price.
Since most of the guns criminals have were stolen, if you don't securely lock up ALL of your guns that aren't under your DIRECT control, YOU are part of the problem.
SOMEBODY made their guns easy to steal, or they wouldn't have them.
SOMEBODY made their guns easy to steal, or they wouldn't have them.
I cannot believe some of the ideas I'm reading here.
Gentlemen, please repeat the following phrase with me: Government is not the solution. Government is the problem masquerading as its own solution.
My answer: Meet force with force. Meet violence with violence. Meet offense with defense, and prosecute the surviving aggressors. Stop making them household names. Let them die behind bars, in anonymity, if they continue to pose a threat. If we let them out, a return to prison for another violent crime should carry a mandatory sentence enhancement.
My. YMMV.
Blessings,
Bill
Amen preacher. Keep it singing!
Well, I'd say that it says that that system works... All we have to do is sacrifice a little thing called "freedom" in favor of a police state to achieve it. Just ask Rudy Giuliani and Mikey Bloomberg about that. They're quite proud of how it's worked in NYC. Stop and frisk on the streets, never mind if a crime is suspected or not. electronic technology used to search someone without them even knowing it for the presence of a firearm, etc. Sure, they're safer. The cost of that safety is just far higher than I'm willing to pay. As for firearms and autos being inherently dangerous, sure, though as is so famously quoted, there are many more guns than there are doctors and yet you're more likely to die or be harmed by the latter than the former... and we have a natural right to protect the life our Creator gave us. "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" --Thomas Jefferson
(Interestingly, I was searching for the exact phrasing of that quote when I located this one as well, from the same author: "Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
Res ipsa loquitor.)
And firearms are far down the list of things that are dangerous, according to the death statistics.
First, it shouldn't be "hopefully": Hope is not a strategy. Second, he shouldn't have to spend thousands more dollars to get back what is already his. The process should be automatic, not something he has to fight to bring to fruition. Third, why are we "reducing them to misdemeanors"? Why do they remain at all? Is his "debt to society" paid or is it not? If he cannot be trusted in society, he should not be in it.
Fallacy #1: His sentence should have been longer. Fallacy #2: He should serve the whole da*n thing. Fallacy #3: His rights are not yours to restore. Yes, if he cannot ever be trusted, he should indeed remain locked behind bars for the remainder of the time he's exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide. Fallacy #4: "Registered sex offender"? Really? Yet we have no "Registered thief", "registered alcoholic", or "registered check deceiver". This is merely a way to "divide and conquer"... Separate off a subsection of society and make them "second class citizens". Then separate off another subsection. Want proof? Look what Lautenberg did with "misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence". Fallacy #5: You can make it illegal for that individual to be armed, but don't make the mistake of thinking that that will actually stop him from doing so. Opinion: I don't think his mere possession of the firearm should be punishable. What he does with it might be, however.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure former felons do regain the privilege of voting in Indiana. Odd, I think, since it's not a right. Rights are inherent to all people and come from our Creator. There is no ubiquitous right to vote in American elections; it is a privilege of citizenship.
And yet our current laws which I may be misremembering you saying you supported, forever criminalize the mere possession of a specified item, even if it had nothing to do with the crime that stuck the offender on that "list". Examples: Are we *really* safer as a society with Martha Stewart disallowed the possession of a firearm? Are we more secure with G. Gordon Liddy having transferred the ownership (or at least possession) of his firearms to his wife? Were we, for whatever brief period it was applicable, better off as a society when Lt. Col. Oliver North, a decorated Marine veteran, was forcibly disarmed by our government over some papers and some false statements?
Those same laws are now being discussed insofar as how to change them to restrict the other "children in the house" (citizens) from having certain items because one of their number acted irresponsibly. By that logic, since Teddy Kennedy was known for his affinity for alcohol, ALL members of all legislative bodies (or even just of the US Congress) should be forbidden from consuming alcohol ever?
Obviously, many of my above questions are rhetorical. My position is, when boiled down to its simplest terms, that we have far too much government and, to return to the premise of this thread, we should do nothing to keep guns from criminals, but rather we should keep the criminals from the guns and from their "prey" population. Segregate them from society and educate our youth at a minimum in how to make a firearm safe.
I'm curious, though: It seems from your reply that you think:
The guilty should be punished, then educated in the use of firearms,
After their sentence is served, the guilty should be allowed to act as the innocent have all along, though possibly serve a term of parole,
That the innocent should (all?) be placed in a position of responsibility for the guilty or formerly-guilty.
Have I read your position incorrectly? (That's not rhetorical.
)Blessings,
Bill
Yep. It's my understanding that at one time, that word was reserved for only the most heinous of crimes, those things from which a person could not be "made whole" by action of the law. (I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong in that understanding and to have it corrected!
)Today, that word is used to describe the acts that we (or our legislators, anyway) just want to see more stringently punished.
Blessings,
Bill
So wouldn't it be better to change the way parole works before we change the law about the legality of convicted felons owning firearms? Or maybe revise our whole justice system since it is such a failure at rehabilation.
Opinion: I don't think his mere possession of the firearm should be punishable. What he does with it might be, however.I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure former felons do regain the privilege of voting in Indiana. Odd, I think, since it's not a right. Rights are inherent to all people and come from our Creator. There is no ubiquitous right to vote in American elections; it is a privilege of citizenship.And yet our current laws which I may be misremembering you saying you supported, forever criminalize the mere possession of a specified item, even if it had nothing to do with the crime that stuck the offender on that "list". Examples: Are we *really* safer as a society with Martha Stewart disallowed the possession of a firearm? Are we more secure with G. Gordon Liddy having transferred the ownership (or at least possession) of his firearms to his wife? Were we, for whatever brief period it was applicable, better off as a society when Lt. Col. Oliver North, a decorated Marine veteran, was forcibly disarmed by our government over some papers and some false statements?
Those same laws are now being discussed insofar as how to change them to restrict the other "children in the house" (citizens) from having certain items because one of their number acted irresponsibly. By that logic, since Teddy Kennedy was known for his affinity for alcohol, ALL members of all legislative bodies (or even just of the US Congress) should be forbidden from consuming alcohol ever?
Obviously, many of my above questions are rhetorical. My position is, when boiled down to its simplest terms, that we have far too much government and, to return to the premise of this thread, we should do nothing to keep guns from criminals, but rather we should keep the criminals from the guns and from their "prey" population. Segregate them from society and educate our youth at a minimum in how to make a firearm safe.
I'm curious, though: It seems from your reply that you think:
The guilty should be punished, then educated in the use of firearms,
After their sentence is served, the guilty should be allowed to act as the innocent have all along, though possibly serve a term of parole,
That the innocent should (all?) be placed in a position of responsibility for the guilty or formerly-guilty.
Have I read your position incorrectly? (That's not rhetorical.
Blessings,
Bill
White collar crimes and violent crimes are different, still both felonies, but sure I think there should be a process for which felons to regain the right to own a firearm back. I said hopefully because I really don't know how one goes about the process (I also don't know how one goes about being paroled but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen)
I think as a general rule convicted felons should not be able to own firearms. However there should be a legal process in place (that doesn't cost thousands of dollars) that allows individuals on a case by case basis a way to restore their right to vote and own firearms.
Yes!
Step 1. Legalize marijuana.
Step 2. Release people locked up for non-violent marijuana related crimes.
Step 3. Use the newly empty prisons to house CRIMINALS!
Step 4. Stop giving plea bargains and lowered sentences.
Step 5. Get funding for hospitals for the mentally ill to be re-opened.
Step 6. Get the mentally ill treatment and have NICS updated with their info.
Step 7. Put together a national carry reciprocity law.
Step 8. Hire more personnel at BATFE or better yet just eliminate the NFA and let law abiding citizens have what they want.
Step 9. Site back and marvel at the economic recovery from the new cash crop industry that was created and the 10's if not 100's of thousands of jobs it created, the lowered number of crimes because crime goes down in a flourishing economy, the fewer number of criminals on the street, the social happiness from knowing that we are taking care of the mentally ill and the increased ability to own new technology in our chosen hobby and carry it wherever you want to.
Step 1. Legalize marijuana.
Step 2. Release people locked up for non-violent marijuana related crimes.
Step 3. Use the newly empty prisons to house CRIMINALS!
Step 4. Stop giving plea bargains and lowered sentences.
Step 5. Get funding for hospitals for the mentally ill to be re-opened.
Step 6. Get the mentally ill treatment and have NICS updated with their info.
Step 7. Put together a national carry reciprocity law.
Step 8. Hire more personnel at BATFE or better yet just eliminate the NFA and let law abiding citizens have what they want.
Step 9. Site back and marvel at the economic recovery from the new cash crop industry that was created and the 10's if not 100's of thousands of jobs it created, the lowered number of crimes because crime goes down in a flourishing economy, the fewer number of criminals on the street, the social happiness from knowing that we are taking care of the mentally ill and the increased ability to own new technology in our chosen hobby and carry it wherever you want to.
Good suggestions. I think some people on here would disagree with #6 because many here view back ground checks as wrong.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
You can work along the margins but I don't think anything will prevent those intent on commiting evil from committing evil.
The murderer of Newtown committed Murder and Theft to obtain his firearms. All the firearms murders and attempted that I have done have involved borrowed firearms (an Attempted Murder I did was Theft of a Smith I frame from a grandmother) from friends or family.
SVF is already a B felony in Indiana, 6 to 20. Federal felon in possession gets really steep. I don't see how enhancing the penalties will help anything. Everyone in the criminal class knows that it is against the law for felons to own guns and yet they do.
In order to mitigate the danger of criminals with guns a la Newtown, we need to eliminate the gun free zones that the government imposes on us (but not itself, have you noticed). Eliminate GFZs, make gun ownership mandatory, and teach firearms safety and proficiency in the public schools.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Time to pimp my Federal Gun Collector's License.
Imagine a C&R for all of Title I and II with federal preemption.
Make the punishment for a gun offence so bad that you would rather get a hammer. I don't mean put them in a cell and feed them good or give them free medical put them on a chain gang and let them work off the crime. In this country getting caught is not all that bad you have more rights than the free people. If it is capital then don't let them sit in jail for 20 years before the needle. Robbery with a gun work off the crime.
How do you propose to accomplush this? Are you going to survey the criminals who have been caught and sentenced for offenses involving firearms and find out just exactly how much time in prison would make them not commit such a crime? In NY, B felonies can carry sentences up to 25 years. Another new one is One to Life. That's the catch all for for prosecutors. Essentially, you are sentenced to one and a third years in a state penitentiary, and spend the remainder of your life on parole. Deterrence as a means to enforce given behavior may work well among nation-states, it's not so sound a principal when it comes to individuals. I think that's been proven over and over. If the thought of 25 years in prison -- which is actually 21 years and 3 months because violent felonies which result in incarceration in State correctional Institutions in NY require that 85% of your maximum sentence be served before you are eligible for parole -- isn't enough to make a person say "Hey, maybe I shouldn't do this" then I argue that no such law ever will.
If a person is so dangerous they cannot be free, TRULY free, why on god's green earth are they out and walking among us? And if they are out and walking among us, why then are they not permitted to be truly free? I would hope no one on here ever becomes branded with the scarlet F. Putting the firearms aspect of it away for the sake of discussion, it will impact EVERY SINGLE PORTION of your life. From career choices, to travel arrangements to even romantic relationships. No aspect of your life will be spared. And no matter how long you remain "clean" will all for the most part be for nought.
No conversation on how to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals can be complete wilout also discussing how can felons be repatriated into society so that they have little to no incentive to recidivate. I fully agree and concede that there are in fact certain characters who cannot ever be rehabilitated/reshaped/repatriated into society. Something inside of their biological operating system is broken. These are the people who should be locked away and never, ever let out of prison. But for every one of them, I would venture there are at least a hundred persons who are not fundamentally malfunctionng units who CAN be readjusted. Why throw away human potential? It just doesn't make sense. People are capable of changing. HOwever if a person is made to feel/believe that no matter what they do or how they try to realign and adjust they will only ever be a worthless convict with no rights, why then should they?
The concept of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a fallacy in and of itself. I think everyone, and I mean everyone, deep down knows this. THat train has long since left the station. You can't call it back. The issue isn't dealing with objects, it's dealing with people. As other people have noted, to declare that it is of paramount importance that felons or other "prohibited classes" be kept from possessing firearms, is to subscribe to the idea that it is the object which in and of itself makes them evil. Does holding a bag of cheetos make you obese? Why not, poor dietary habits lead to heart disease, and heart disease kills more Americans every year then firearms in the hands of criminals do in a decade. But we seem somehow to be able to draw the logical distinction that in the case of the poor dietary habits it is an issue of self control and personal behavior. Once firearms come into the discussion though, it literally takes on a whole new life. That is to say that the firearm itself is a protagonistic character all it's own. This is rubbish, and we all know it. We're arguing the same philosophy in circles and on the whole it is getting us nowhere.
Firearms should be sold in the Sears catalog, at gas stations, and at home depot. The only questions asked should be "cash or charge" and the solution will in fact sort itself out.
As other people have noted, to declare that it is of paramount importance that felons or other "prohibited classes" be kept from possessing firearms, is to subscribe to the idea that it is the object which in and of itself makes them evil.
I am not saying a gun makes anyone evil, that would be like saying spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat. What I am saying is that the bank robber who used a firearm to commit his robbery should not have the right to own a firearm after he does his time, without some sort of formal system in place for him to go about regaining his right that he forfeited when he was found guilty of armed robbery.
People who buy guns for illegal purposes generally steal them or buy the on the street from other people of similar mind set. There is a big market in illegal and often stolen guns.
The best solution is to be careful who you sell to and keep your guns secured.. For years I suffered a moral delema of do you leave it in the car where it might be stolen or carry is where you're not allowed to. NOw I just don't go anyplace w here I can't carry.
There are professional gun runners who buy in Florida, Indiana, Ohio and other free states and transport their guns to DC, NYC and Chicago to sell for a healthy and illlegal profit. Here is where the focus should lie. Catching and stopping the people who are supplying guns to gangs and robbers etc.
Also Gun violence in the US is confined almost exclusively to large cities with dense population and concentrated areas of poverty. OF course there is the occasional Sandy Hook or Aurora but those are a different kind of nut job.
If the cities of this country could and would control inner city crime the gun violence numbers would go down dramatically. After all who do you think of when you think about having to defend yourself or your family?
The best solution is to be careful who you sell to and keep your guns secured.. For years I suffered a moral delema of do you leave it in the car where it might be stolen or carry is where you're not allowed to. NOw I just don't go anyplace w here I can't carry.
There are professional gun runners who buy in Florida, Indiana, Ohio and other free states and transport their guns to DC, NYC and Chicago to sell for a healthy and illlegal profit. Here is where the focus should lie. Catching and stopping the people who are supplying guns to gangs and robbers etc.
Also Gun violence in the US is confined almost exclusively to large cities with dense population and concentrated areas of poverty. OF course there is the occasional Sandy Hook or Aurora but those are a different kind of nut job.
If the cities of this country could and would control inner city crime the gun violence numbers would go down dramatically. After all who do you think of when you think about having to defend yourself or your family?
Consider this sceinaro. Joe is in a gang. He and his gang commit crimes, he is eventually arrested for grand theft auto, he goes to jail and is a convicted felon who has served his term of 3 years for grand theft auto. He gets out of jail and contiunes to hang out with his gang, they need guns, he has been tasked at obtaining them a bunch of handguns.
Tell me what you think would be the easist route for Joe?
A. Buy them from a FFL? No not an option.
B. Break into somebody's home with the hopes that he can steal a firearm. He very well might die doing this.
C. Drive to the gunshow and buy them from "private sales" and walk away with his guns.
We're talking about the same inner city crime that is being aided because somebody simply doesn't care whomever buys his/her firearm. Now the vast majority of folks on INGO actually ASK to see IN DL and LTCH which is harsher then the legal requirement. Should we not stive to take option C off the table. Is that not at least a little better? Will folks STILL be able to buy, sell, and trade with each their firearms at gunshows and in the classifeds? Yes. Now they merely have to simply LOOK at these two forms of ID. Now Joe is forced to look elsewhere for his guns, which as you said also come from.
Sure folks will still steal/kill for their guns, but at least as reasponsible gun owners we can say that they're not getting them from us.
I was thinking the same thing, somewhere along the lines of "escape from New York".
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- Cameramonkey
- SouthernStar25
- peterock
- Steelworker
- sv40sw45
- 15kiserc
- bloodandgutsmurphy
- rgw13
- Johnk
- BIGE7.62
- KLB
- maxipum
- rhamersley
- jdhilder56
- opus1776
- Bassat
- tomcat13
- baglorious
- DeadeyeChrista'sdad
- mmpsteve
- nucular
- KG1
- loudgroove
- STAGE 2
- indychase
- joe138
- 1775usmarine
- dung
- red_zr24x4
- wtburnette
- Bennettjh
- VinceU1
- Mark-DuCo
- littletommy
- ACC
- rbhargan
- led4thehed2
- gpasp101
- smokenfire10
- HnK
- Cavman
- Gaffer
- JTL165
- shotgun131313
- Butch627
- manifest destiny
- Trimsaw
- ComeJesuscome
- jtmiller951
- X3r0h0uR