I wonder...

[virginia mountainman]

How gun control advocates plan to deal with people who will simply ignore any ban or registration, and simply carry on as before? What are your ideas for dealing with non-compliance?? What about those that laugh and point at any new gun control laws? Those that refuse to "register"? How will you know "who has what" before hand? How will you deal with wide expanses of the countryside where the population is in agreement in their non-compliance?

And who exactly will you send to deal with it?

[lastlib]

1. public hanging is fine.

[virginia mountainman]

3. Ok, who is going to do it? You?

[gejohnston]

21. since when were liberals for the death penalty?

or progressives for that matter?

[MightyMopar]

22. I'm for the death penalty as long as someone is proved guilty

[gejohnston]

23. there are only three reasons to kill

food and to defend yourself. Even vegans take a life, plant life, when they eat. Most people eat animals that someone else killed. Sometimes euthanasia
Defense is self explanatory. Ritualized execution by the State is none of those. The prisoner is no threat to anyone in his cell.
The redneck who shoots a deer in season with his .308 AR, and puts it on the dinner table, is OK.
The rich guy that flies to Kenya with his engraved H and H, to shoot an elephant for the fuck of it, not so much.

[Jenoch]

28. Despite popar belief, African elephants

are not endangered. The huge prices charged to shoot an elephant is money that goes to help preserve elephants. That sounds oxymoronic but that's the way it works. Even if I could afford it, if I won tbe Powerball, I still would not shoot an elephant. I might go on a photographic safari however.

[gejohnston]

47. I understand the utilitarian part

and I agree to that point. I was speaking of what ethic I was taught and what I taught to my kids.

[gejohnston]

46. that's ironic,

since many anti gun folks use it to refer to gun owners in general. while it is often used as a slur targeted at white rural working class in the midwest and south, it is sometimes a classest slur towards all rural or all working class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck
Those who use it as slur are "anti gun" around here, so I find your post ironic. I did not mean it as a slur.

[MightyMopar]

156. I'm from an almost rural union background of 25% Scots-Irish heritage & know the history of "redneck

[gejohnston]

162. same here

Mountain West instead of the south.

[Jenoch]

27. There have been many people,

mostly minority males, who were 'proved guilty' and put to death who were not guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

76. exactly.

[MightyMopar]

116. Changing the subject again. Who said anything about kangaroo courts?

[Jenoch]

119. Do you mean prior to your post?

Nobody.

[MightyMopar]

121. You mean like in the red states we have now?

[Jenoch]

125. You mean like California?

[MightyMopar]

127. Criticizing our most Demcratic state for no good reason after I criticized red states.

Things that make one go hmmmmmmmmmm..........

You just couldn't resist?

[gejohnston]

131. you assume a lot

According to SPLC, California also has 84 active hate groups. LAPD and SFPD doesn't exactly have the greatest records in police color blindness and civility. When I was in California, right wing talk radio was everywhere. Mike Savage was a local ranter on KSFO in San Francisco.

[Jenoch]

132. Not criticizing, just pointing out a fact.

I've always been opposed to the death penalty, but then a case comes up which tempts me to change my position (Loughner, Andrea Yates, and the California mother who killed her baby by putting her in a microwave).

[cherokeeprogressive]

150. Well at least we know exactly where you stand on the Death Penalty.

[MightyMopar]

151. IRONIC THAT THE GUN GUYS HAVE NO PROBLEM BEING JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER THEMSELVES

But are anti-death penalty when a democratic government with jury system with appeals, checks and balances executes criminals.

Actually that meme suits the NRA narrative, so does make sense in a sick way.

[cherokeeprogressive]

152. I've never been a Judge, never served on a Jury except on DU, and have NEVER executed a human.

So the rest of your post is about as substantial as a fart in a windstorm. Probably made the same sound too, if read out loud.

A "democratic government with jury system with appeals, checks and balances executes criminals" by the fucking HUNDREDS in error. Thank you SO much for letting us know you have NO PROBLEM with that, and believe The Government NEVER makes mistakes in life and death circumstances. It's more enlightening than just about any of the other crap I've seen you spout.

Having never read ANY NRA propaganda, I have NO FUCKING CLUE what their narrative is, so your shallow attempt at stifling me by accusing (albeit in a shallow, roundabout way) me of spreading said narrative is looking mighty mopey.

[MightyMopar]

154. Why didn't the Constitution you love so much outlaw the death penalty?

I do have a problem with failed trials, never said anything different.

[cherokeeprogressive]

157. You can dance, dance, dance. You can try to walk your words back. YOU SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY.

Wholeheartedly and with full faith in the word of The Government. Again, I thank you for clarifying that for us. I see you in a much clearer light now.

And just a little reality check here... The Constitution has no power to outlaw anything. You see, it's not an animate object. It has no vocal cords with which to speak, nor hands with which to write. So, my guess is THAT'S why The Constitution didn't outlaw the death penalty.

On the other hand, how the fuck should I know why The Framers didn't outlaw it? I DO know one thing though... YOU support it, wholeheartedly and without reservation.

[cherokeeprogressive]

158. AND MightyMoper would be HAPPY (his own words) to be the person who pulls the handle on the gallows.

That's some fucked up shit right there fella.

[MightyMopar]

159. I SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY IN A DEMOCRATIC STATE WITH PROPER CHECKS AND BALANCES

[cherokeeprogressive]

160. There ya go. THE STATE will get it right... huh?

I don't suppose you've actually THOUGHT about the "checks and balances" you trotted out in your pathetic attempt to walk back your SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY, but on the off chance you have, here's your opportunity to lay them out for us.

What are your "checks and balances" that allow you to SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY?

[MightyMopar]

161. Democratic government is better than some yahoo with a gun like George Zimmerman

[spin]

164. Does a person have a right to use a firearm for self defense when he is under attack by ...

an individual who intends to put him in the hospital for an extended period of time or six feet under and has the capability of doing so?

I am not suggesting a fist fight between two well matched individuals but instead a situation in which the attacker is armed with a lethal weapon or has a significant physical advantage over his victim. I am also assuming the the incident is reviewed by the legal system and meets all of the requirements for justifiable self defense.

I did some research on the death penalty years ago in order to form my own views. I found that a murder trial is an very expensive proposition and that when you add the cost of numerous appeals executing an guilty individual is often far more expensive than housing him in prison. There is also the possibility of executing an innocent individual. I found little evidence that the threat of execution actually deters a murderer. Therefore I changed my pro death penalty views.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Does this mean that we should have you on suicide watch? n/t

[NEG]

12. Lastlib....

Most of your gun control post seem very emotional/polarized. I would really like to know what makes you so strongly opposed. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just curios.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. nasty post. disgusting rude, gross and ott.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. +1 this ^^^ :) n/t

[guardian]

31. You are in good company.

The KKK thought lynching was acceptable too.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. the operative word being "good" there --

[MightyMopar]

45. Public hanging after a trial isn't lynching but don't let facts get in the way

[Tuesday Afternoon]

74. so, I should put you down as a Democrat that is fine with Capital Punishment ??

Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

the Death Penalty, amirite?

you sure do quack like a duck.

[MightyMopar]

79. Yep, I'm for capital punishment with very strong proof of the crime with checks and balances

I think it should also be public.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

82. how barbarian and regressive of you.

[MightyMopar]

90. Yeah, capital punishment is barbaric but these wacky gun laws the US suffers under is civilized? Ok

[Tuesday Afternoon]

92. the one does not negate the other.

[gejohnston]

95. Japan also has capitol punishment

it also has no exclusionary rule, no right for your lawyer to be present for "questioning", coerced confessions are allowed as evidence. Since they don't have jury trials, an acquittal would be bad for a judges career as it would be for the prosecutor's.

[MightyMopar]

99. Where did anyone call for that? Trying to muddy the waters?

[gejohnston]

101. no, but there are those who do

some of your rants yesterday had me wondering.

[MightyMopar]

106. Which "rant"?

[shadowrider]

2. They'll just make it double against the law not to comply

That'll fix those people.

I suggest the anti-gun people show up to confiscate them, since they're the ones crying for it. They'd have to show up unarmed of course, because it would be illegal for them to show up armed.

[MightyMopar]

17. Just use armored robots and nanobots

The nanobots will go under your cheap door and right up your ass

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. Leave...

...your disgusting fantasies at the door. Wingnut.

[Berserker]

39. Why are there

so many hateful Liberals in the last month on DU? Well judging by your post count you are either a hateful Liberal or?

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. Post-Sandy-Hook DU has really opened my eyes, that's for sure.

Never thought to see the avalanche of hate, ideological totalitarianism, and irrationality that the resurgence of the gun control debate has fostered. This is not a particularly liberal community in any real sense. It's politically leftist in the partisan sense...but not socially or ethically so.

[MightyMopar]

80. Really, DU isn't socially liberal because many want the same gun laws other liberal nations have

I guess the EU and Oceania are gulags we don't know about.

[gejohnston]

83. Australian gun laws were passed by a

conservative parliament with a right wing PM at the bully pulpit. Most of the EU has laxer gun laws than what you want.

[MightyMopar]

85. So you're saying liberal Australians didn't support these gun laws?

Brothers in arms, yes, but the US needs to get rid of its guns

August 1, 2012

John Howard

Australia was right to take a different path to the US and opt for gun control

The national gun control laws delivered by the Howard government, following this tragedy received bipartisan support. They, nonetheless, caused internal difficulties for some of my then National Party colleagues. Tim Fischer and John Anderson, then leader and deputy leader of the National Party federally, as well as Rob Borbidge, then National Party premier of Queensland, courageously faced down opponents in their own ranks to support a measure they knew to be in the national interest. Many believed, in the months that followed, that hostility towards these gun laws played a role in the emergence of Pauline Hanson's One Nation cause.

These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html#ixzz2HDdch04F

[gejohnston]

93. no I didn't say that

Actually, Australian murder rates have been falling anyway, regardless of means. It continued to drop at the same rate after the law as before.

A peer reviewed study published by the British Journal of Criminology 2006 said there was no evidence that the law had any effect.
At least one of those 13 was a battle between two biker gangs.

Oh yeah,
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090464799535.html

[MightyMopar]

96. Just wanted clarification, it could be interpreted liberals were against these successful laws

[gejohnston]

100. since it didn't lower the murder or

suicide rate as a whole, I don't define it as successful. Since Australia highest rape rate in the OECD countries, they are hardly a non violent paradise any more than the UK is.

[MightyMopar]

102. Once again changing the subject. Here's a article saying homicides and suicides went down

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.

The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn’t statistically significant.

What is significant is the decline the laws caused in the firearm suicide rate, which Leigh and Neill estimate at a 74 percent reduction for a buyback of that size. This is even higher than the overall decline in the suicide rate, because the gun buybacks’ speed varied from state to state. In states with quick buybacks, the fall in the suicide rate far exceeded the fall in states with slower buybacks:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

Maybe Australia just reports rapes better. After Stubenville, it's hard to brag on the rape situation in America but you are anyhow.

[gejohnston]

105. so?

I read the Brit paper that counters yours. I would have to actually see the one Howard cites. Just because John Howard claimed something doesn't make it true. It being third hand via a blog makes it less impressive.

[Lizzie Poppet]

86. Since that wasn't remotely my argument...

...I'll leave you to answer your own question (since it seems you prefer to carry out both sides of the dialogue).

You have a nice day, y'hear?

[MightyMopar]

87. So you are saying other nation with these gun laws aren't more liberal than the USA?

Most actual DU'ers are social Democrats like our Euro brothers. Is that not being liberal or progressive?

[Lizzie Poppet]

89. Yet another straw man.

Are you trying for a quorum or something?

Try reading and thinking about what I actually wrote...

Or don't. It could hardly be more obvious this is a complete waste of time.

[MightyMopar]

104. "This is not a particularly liberal community in any real sense" Come on that's just not true

"Never thought to see the avalanche of hate, ideological totalitarianism, and irrationality that the resurgence of the gun control debate has fostered. This is not a particularly liberal community in any real sense. It's politically leftist in the partisan sense...but not socially or ethically so."

Why because a majority of liberals in the entire world including on DU want stronger guns laws including 78% of Democrats.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57559669/poll-support-for-stricter-gun-control-at-10-year-high/?pageNum=2

What other website has this jury system?

[Lizzie Poppet]

112. Straw man #3!

Which one's Curly Joe...?

[MightyMopar]

114. So how isn't this a liberal community? Because it doesn't agree with you?

[Lizzie Poppet]

144. And we have a foursome!

Do you even understand what you're doing (and why I won't bother answering the questions until you knock that shit off)?

[OctOct1]

4. My thoughts

I think this issue is similar to drunk driving.
you will never get rid of alcohol or DUI.
But you can make it unlawful to not comply.
Anyone who dose not comply will become part of the crime.
If a officer pulls over a drunk driver and does not stop him from driving.......
If a officer finds some one with an unregistered gun.........
if you do not comply to the laws you pay consequences
history is full of noncompliance. Jim Crow laws for example
they always end up following the law. like it or not

[gejohnston]

5. aww but a felon with a DUI

goes to jail for DUI
a felon with an unregistered gun does not, but would go for felon in possession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[virginia mountainman]

7. You are correct...

You cannot be busted for having an unregistered weapon, if you CANNOT REGISTER it due to self incrimination.

From the decision...

Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

[virginia mountainman]

6. yea, Mooshiners, pot growers....Yea, they ALWAYS end up following the law...

Prohibition worked so well, add to that to the fact that people firmly believe that it is their RIGHT too own that weapon...

How do you intend to deal with rural police departments who refuse to follow the "law"? Or ONLY enforce it against "brown" people? You know, kinda of like most other gun control laws are already enforced??

[DollarBillHines]

9. That's why it's not going to happen

Prohibition of possession will only be enforceable on a case-by-case basis. There will never be an attempt to force registration or a nation-wide confiscation.

What will happen will be bans on future sales.

[spin]

11. The chances of passing a ban is slim to none ...

considering the House is controlled by Republicans.

Another watered down ban on "assault weapons" is a slim possibility.

[MightyMopar]

18. Cheer on your TEA PARTY buddies

[gejohnston]

20. I didn't see cheering, I saw a simple statement of fact

Which party controls the house?
The Speaker's main priorities is golf, booze, and naming post offices.
That fact applies to stuff we both agree on too.

[MightyMopar]

36. Ok, "concern troll" propaganda about supposedly insurmountable republican power

The only reason the Pukes control the House is because of gerrymandering and support from evil billionaires like the Kochs, the lost the total vote for the House.

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. Regardless of the reason, the political end result is the same.

Moreover, if the Democratic leadership insists on pushing Sen. Feinstein's proposed legislation as written, it could very well have a disastrous effect in 2014. It's as if there's some bizarre form of collective amnesia about what happened in 1994.

[MightyMopar]

98. No it isn 't! Force the Pukes to defend the laPierre and NRA and we gain political capital

The political landscape is shifting

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. Unfortunately for you, the NRA might be replaced by...

...the Firearms Policy Coalition:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022140356

All they need to is do is keep to a strict nonpartisan approach, and half your support
will disappear- after all, aren't we told on a regular basis by you lot that the NRA
isn't supported by most gun owners?

[Jenoch]

124. The total vote for the US House

thing is a sham. Democrats won their seats by wider margins than did Republicans. There might be Gerrymanderying going on, but that is a separate issue. (USHouse members are not chosen by nation-wide vote totals by party).

[jmg257]

10. An interesting problem...

Here's how I would begin to go about it, IF so inclined:

-1st Decide which weapons/devices you want to ban and confiscate, and write and pass a law, be sure to mention the commerce clause.
-2nd Include severe and mandatory penalties for non-compliance; include worse penalties for criminal use of weapons
-3rd Offer a buy back program or tax credit for non-compliant weapons for a 6 month period
-4th Offer a 6 month grace period for people to turn their contraband in to newly hired FBI & ATF special agents at designated collection points
-5th Have a pre-determined time period to kick in a ban of the non-compliant weapons for LE possession, at the least when not on duty

*How gun control advocates plan to deal with people who will simply ignore any ban or registration, and simply carry on as before?
The same way we deal with other criminals, wait for them to screw up, let others sign complaints leading to invesitgation, not worry so much cause contraband guns/devices will be 'hidden';
Stepped up LE and hightened public interest to investigate & identify non-compliant criminals;
Use FBI and ATF special agents to go through all those existing 4473 forms;
Compare serial numbers of illegal weapons from 4473 forms to those turned in;
Have courts issue warrants based on probable cause listing the purchasers on 4473 forms whose guns haven't been turned in;
Have FBI, ATF and local LE serve warrants for the persons listed in the warrants, do searches & investigations, make arrests when possible
Make incidences of arrrest and positive investigations high profile via news conferneves, mass media, inet, etc.

* What are your ideas for dealing with non-compliance??
Severe and mandatory penalities - felony, prison, fines etc.;
see above

*What about those that laugh and point at any new gun control laws?
Sever and mandatory penalties - jail is funny;
see above

*Those that refuse to "register"?
No need to register initially, just ban and confiscate certain types

*How will you know "who has what" before hand?
Does not matter - Ban and confiscate

*How will you deal with wide expanses of the countryside where the population is in agreement in their non-compliance?
"The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

*And who exactly will you send to deal with it?
LE, FBI, ATF, National Guard, US Armed forces


What could possibly go wrong?

[generalhh]

13. i bet if this happens at-least 10,000 Americans will die at the hands of other Americans min.

i bet if this happens at-least 10,000 Americans will die at the hands of other Americans min.

this country will fracture if not repealed. good luck with house door to door searches. remember all these agents have family's and homes. they would be found and most likely their would massive innocents killed. Wives, daughters sons mothers fathers.

Basically it will never happen.

Many states would leave the union i truly believe prob a the lower states would leave and no im not crazy i just live in the south in North Carolina and although the state is becoming more progressive we are the home to special forces the 82 airborne, Large air force base and large marine base (the planned bin laden raid here) needless to say we are a pro gun state. our state was run by democrats for 100 years prior to 2010 and Brady rates us low.

we are a ccw state with shall issue and no assault weapons or mag bans. Local sheriffs most sign off on pistol purchases and NFA weapons unless you use a trust. However if you a crook dont rob around here the police will shoot and kill your @ss and home owners do kill burglars around here often. (quite often for a soldiers wife to be armed while he is deployed for protection) Even this year an old lady used an assualt rifle AR-15 based to kill a kid as he was breaking in after she pointed at him and screamed for him to leave. She killed him and his break in partner was charged with his murder. (however if she gets to friendly with someone while hes gone she may end up dead we have lots of cases of that as well)

Point being even our state NC is clearly pro gun. SC no question GA,MS,FL,AL,TExas, LA yeah right.

[jmg257]

14. Thanks for the response! Very good to get a wider view of...the views of others.

Last edited Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:39 AM - Edit history (1)

And how important & serious things can be for them.

Talked to a couple guys at work and they said basically the same thing (not as much personal experience though).


"i bet if this happens at-least 10,000 Americans will die at the hands of other Americans"

That, sadly, is nothing new.

[MightyMopar]

19. MORE AMERICANS KILLED BY GUNS THAN BY WAR IN THE 20TH CENTURY

MORE AMERICANS KILLED BY GUNS THAN BY WAR IN THE 20TH CENTURY

Washington, DC) Although the exact number of Americans killed by gun violence in the 20th century will never be known, it is now all but certain that it will, by any measure, vastly exceed the number of Americans shot and killed on battlefields since 1900. In fact, more Americans were killed with guns in the 18-year period between 1979 and 1997 (651,697), than were killed in battle in all wars since 1775 (650,858). And while a sharp drop in gun homicides has contributed to a decline in overall gun deaths since 1993, the 90's will likely exceed the death toll of the 1980s (327,173) and end up being the deadliest decade of the century. By the end of the 1990s, an estimated 350,000 Americans will have been killed in non-military-related firearm incidents during the decade.*

Statistics on total U.S. gun deaths (including suicides and unintentional shootings), as compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics, have only been collected since 1979. But between 1979 and 1997, 651,697 Americans lost their lives to gun violence, including 334,870 suicides, 278,865 homicides, 28,964 unintentional shootings, and 8,998 from unknown causes.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/289

These a##holes need to be crushed anyhow, might as well get it over with. Technology can protect law enforcement from the worst of it. Pay for it by confiscating their assets.

[LibertyFox]

25. I think that what I find most illuminating

Is that you quote a piece from the brady campaign in order to get riled up (which of course blames guns for talking people into suicide.) You then fervently declare that in order to stop violence and death, that you must harness deadly force from the government to visit violence and death on people who have otherwise done you nor anyone else harm.

I have harmed no one with my guns and do not intend to, yet you lust for my blood because I will not comply with confiscation.

[MightyMopar]

37. But between 1979 and 1997, 278,865 homicides! Did you miss that part

10,000 seems a smaller price to pay.

[Puha Ekapi]

66. The idea of...

killing gun owners seems to give you a stiffy, judging from your recent posts here. What's up with that, I wonder?

[Lurks Often]

97. Some flaws

You presume you would get complete cooperation from law enforcement

Posse Comitatus prevents the use of the military to enforce US laws in most cases and even presuming that was waived, you presume you would get complete cooperation from the military

What happens when multiple states tell the Federal government that not only will they not enforce the law, they will not allow Federal law enforcement to enforce the law?

There are 5th amendment issues involved as well

What makes you think courts around the country will uphold your ideas as legal?

[jmg257]

136. I don't presume anything. I do think

that, like with civil rights which weren't all that popular in certain regions, if the will of we the people is there, eventually the laws will be followed by most people, and LE too.
Especially when backed by heavy federal involvement - including force if/when necessary.
Could be, maybe not. Fear is a powerful thing - could cut both ways though.

Due process and "just compensation" helps alleviate the 5th amendment issues.

Read the latest Insurrection Act again - Posse Comitatus is a pipe dream - there a few solutions the President has for dealing with unlawful combinations, enforcing federal laws, etc.


For states who refuse to cooperate? I guess that's their problem then. Chances are the feds would do little, at least intially, try the 'withhold federal funding' thing?, not sure what else anyone would be willing to try. Probably a just as well - all those people who don't agree with the laws would have a place to move to.

[Lurks Often]

153. We're going to disagree

I'm not sure there are enough votes to even get anything major through the Senate, much less the House. Harry Reid as been a long time pro-gun Senator and A rated by the NRA. I wonder if he willing to risk his seat and position as Senator Majority leader for a gun control law that might not even stand up to judicial scrutiny.

I don't expect any serious gun control to be enacted at the Federal level. Gun control is not a Democrat vs Republican thing, it is more of a urban/suburban vs suburban/rural thing. If you look at the members of Congress and where they stand on the issue, most of the prominent anti-gun politicians come from either urban areas or suburban areas very close to the major urban areas. Most of the prominent pro-gun members are from rural areas or suburban areas not immediately adjacent to a major urban center.

As I have stated before, the most important thing to a member of Congress is keeping their seat and they remember the 1994 election and how many members of Congress lost their seats due to their vote in favor of the AWB.

I also think you over estimate the support out there, despite cherry picked polls, the talking heads on TV and what many here on DU may think, everything I'm hearing and seeing indicates there are a lot more first time gun buyers in the past year or so and it is increasing.

[jmg257]

155. Agree. I am not sure of the level of support either...why I always

(or usually) say 'if the will is there...'. Amendments, specifically the 2nd, have been circumvented before, so do not see much resistance there, though maybe Heller makes a difference. Felt the restriction meant little if opposed by "the decided sense of the public...', but if the public can not agree, and knowing there will always be someone to challenge...

I did tend to think 'most' people would fear the risk of not following new laws if the penalties were severe enough, as I know I would. But I see that too may not be the case.

[ileus]

24. Punish the innocent gun owner even more???

Just as with all CONTROL bills.

[Mr.Bill]

26. All the guns will never be confiscated no matter what is done. It's logistically impossible.

What can be done is this. Set up anonymous tip lines with a reward for reporting unregistered guns. If anyone has a gun that is registered and not turned in, issue a warrant for their arrest, refuse to issue their driver's (or any other) license. Refuse to issue their income tax refund. Have a govt. security clearance at work? Not any more. You get the point. The government can ruin your life and make you a fugitive without ever knocking on your door.

I don't think it will ever come to this, nor do I think it should. I'm just illustrating what could be theoretically done without kicking your door down and "prying your gun from your cold dead fingers."

[Jenoch]

29. It seems like you are in favor

of emulating both the Soviets and Nazi Germany, turn in your neighbor for non-complience.

[Mr.Bill]

35. It seems you are having reading comprehension difficulties.

What part of "I don't think it will come to this, nor do I think it should" don't you understand?

[Jenoch]

40. Then why did you suggest this?

"What can be done is this. Set up anonymous tip lines with a reward for reporting unregistered guns."

[Mr.Bill]

41. Again, read the whole post.

It's all about a concept called context. I made it quite clear that I did not think it should happen.

[Jenoch]

42. Of course I read it and understand the

point you were attempting to make. I believe even the suggestion is ridiculous. I should not have posted the rhetorical question.

[Mr.Bill]

43. Well, I believe you suggesting

that I am for something that I specifically said I wasn't is pretty ridiculous, too.

Have a good evening.

[PavePusher]

113. Ah, paid informers. Yes, the East German system should work quite well here. n/t

[bowens43]

30. Simple. If they are caught

and don't make us pry their guns from their cold dead fingers then very long prison terms would be appropriate.

Who. Law enforcement of course.

Just like we do with any other potentially violent criminal.

[iiibbb]

48. Wait... what? We kill "potentially" violent criminals? Really?

I mean really?

It is bizarre how violent anti-gun people can be... perhaps the fact they think people should be disarmed is because they themselves are so violent.

It is to laugh.

[Buzz Clik]

54. You intentionally misread the post. Why?

Is this some sort of lame rhetorical trick?

Don't come back all huffy with "Yeah, but he/she said 'cold dead fingers'?" You know damn well what the poster meant.

[baldguy]

51. You mean people who violate the law - "criminals"?

Certainly you're not implying that people who own guns and endlessly advertise themselves as fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens (who are the only kind of real Americans that matter) AREN'T SUCH AT ALL?

They should be treated like any other criminal - How do you "deal" with pedophiles & meth addicts? We may not be able to ever get rid of them entirely, but we can certainly marginalize them & their influence in society, and we can make sure they can't create public policy.

[iiibbb]

53. I'm sure you abide by each and every law that is out there that you don't agree with

Every

Single

One.

[baldguy]

55. When I go over the speed limit when I drive, I don't pretend it's a political statement.

And when I get pulled over for speeding, I don't spout delusional libertarian bullshit at the cop.

This is called "accepting responsibility for your actions", and is something which is sorely lacking among gun worshipers - as indicated by the OP.

[iiibbb]

57. I'm sure speed limits are the only laws you break

I really am sure of it.

Do you think that people who get mandatory minimum prison sentences for possession of small amounts of drugs deserve everything they get?

I suppose you also are all for the violations of the 4th amendment since Sept 11... but hey, if you're not up to something there shouldn't be a problem.... right?

I'm sure you do... you strike me as a very law and order kind of guy.

[baldguy]

62. You think people SHOULD NOT be held responsable for their actions?

That's the the same type of entitled RW juvenile bullshit that causes most of our problems. Stop the whining baby crap & grow the fuck up.

[iiibbb]

63. Do you think governments should do whatever they want?

The power should reside with government? That is what you seem to be exposing. If government makes a law against something it should punish people.

Doesn't matter if the law is just... or makes any sense.

If it's the law it must be followed.

That is the stand you have chosen.

You're in the wrong country.


And for calling me right wing... go fuck _yourself_ .... assuming it's legal in your state of course.

[baldguy]

69. You don't understand how democracies work, do you?

In this thread you've displayed appalling ignorance, astonishing immaturity, & deliberate obtuseness. Maybe you should change your avatar:

[iiibbb]

70. You don't seem to know how this one works either

Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:37 PM - Edit history (1)

And you have failed to say why strict adherence to laws applies to guns, but not other areas that we have laws in place to control something in this society. You also fail to grasp the role non-compliance plays in democracy..

[iiibbb]

58. How many neighbors have you busted for media piracy?

Cuz you know... it's the law.

[Buzz Clik]

52. It seems that there has been a nationwide wink at violators of current laws.

That should change. All violators should be prosecuted.

We don't catch all speeders or those who run stop signs or those who embezzle money. Should we give up and let them carry on? Of course not.

When caught, they need to be busted to the max.

[Squinch]

56. Here is my proposal: if you own a gun, and it is used in the commission of a crime

by someone else, your sentence is a percentage - say 10% - of the perpetrator's sentence. If you committed the crime with your own gun, the 10% is added to your original sentence.

HOWEVER if your gun is registered, and stolen or lost, and you report the theft, there is NO PENALTY. If your gun is registered, and used in the commission of a crime without your knowledge, you are guilty of not having secured the gun correctly. But if you are aware of the theft or loss and report it, you are not guilty, and are given no sentence.

If your gun is NOT registered, and it is credibly linked to you (by some evidence that the gun was stolen from you or sold by you) and it is used in the commission of a crime, your sentence is now 25% of the perpetrator's. He gets 4 years, you get 1 year.

If YOU use an unregistered gun in the commission of a crime, your sentence is increased by 25%.

That would work.

[iiibbb]

59. Here is my proposal

Dump the war on drugs. Dump mandatory drug sentencing. Dump 3-strike rule if absent of gun.

Mandatory minimums and enhanced punishments for contact crimes committed with guns.

[Squinch]

60. But you also have to penalize the gun owner if he is not the same person who committed the crime.

And make the penalty sufficient to discourage unregistered gun trafficking.

Add that and I'm totally with you.

[iiibbb]

64. Why penalize the gun owner who might only be a vicitim of crime themselves.

In what world do we penalize victims of other crimes?

Give me an example.

[Squinch]

67. If the gun owner has not sufficiently secured the gun, and the gun has been stolen and used to

commit a crime on someone else, the gun owner is at fault. Through irresponsiblity, he has made the weapon available to the perpetrator.

OR, if the gun owner has sold the gun to someone who commits a crime, he bears some responsiblity for that crime.

We hear all the time about how we can't penalize responsible gun owners. This doesn't. It just defines what a responsible gun owner is. My definition of a responsible gun owner is someone who ensures that his gun will never be used in a crime, and who accepts penalties if the gun IS used in a crime.

And as I said in my original post: if the gun is registered, and stolen or lost, and that theft is reported, he incurs no penalty.

[iiibbb]

71. Define "sufficiently secured"

Safes can be broken into. Some of the ones California considers "acceptable" can be opened in about 2 minutes with a crowbar.

[Squinch]

73. Then get better safes. It's your responsibility that that doesn't happen. I don't care how you do

it. It isn't my problem. It isn't a problem the rest of us need to take on. You bought the gun, you work it out. Just make sure your gun isn't able to be used in the commission of a crime. Or pay the penalty.

Someone who uses a safe that can be opened in 2 minutes isn't really a responsible gun owner, is he?

The regulation wouldn't specify how you go about securing your gun, it would specify the penalty if your gun is used in the commission of a crime, which is proof in itself that you didn't secure it sufficiently. The rest is your problem.

[iiibbb]

75. "You" made it your problem when you said I need a safe and the government defined ...

what was acceptable...

It is not _my_ problem that the state mandated level of protection is so easily thwarted.

[Squinch]

117. I am saying that there needs to be a new law. You are responsible for the crimes

committed with your gun.

Under my proposal, we're not going to legislate how you prevent crimes from being committed with your gun. That is your problem. But there will be penalties if crimes are committed with your gun. So under my proposal, you will need to BE A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER and make sure no crimes are committed with your gun. If you are an irresponsible gun owner, you will be penalized.

If you know that the state's mandated gun safes are not sufficient to prevent theft of guns by the wrong people, then you don't use those gun safes. If you do, that's not very responsible, is it?

[iiibbb]

137. Why is the state recommending a safe, and the following by saying that that safe isn't acceptable.

That's Byzantine.

What does your proposal do to actually prevent crime. It only sounds like it makes it a big pain in the ass to legitimately own a gun. Why does it need to be a big pain in the ass to own a gun for legitimate purposes if it's not going to actually prevent crimes?

What is the connection between your proposal and stopping crime?

[Squinch]

149. Please review the thread. The OP asked for suggestions on how to deal with people who

refuse to comply with registration laws if registration laws are passed.

In reply I proposed a plan in which there are rewards for registration and stiff penalties for non-registrations. My proposal also puts the responsibility on the gun owner for any crimes committed with his gun.

What my plan proposes is a requirement that law abiding gun owners register their guns and keep them from being used in the commission of crimes. Nothing more. That is responsible gun ownership.

If keeping your gun from being used in the commission of a crime is a "big pain in the ass" that is really too bad. If you can't keep your gun from being used to commit a crime, you shouldn't own a gun. My running into your gun on a dark night in the hands of a criminal is a bigger pain in the ass.

The connection between my proposal and stopping crime is this: if you were going to go to jail if your gun were used to commit a crime, you probably would make absolutely sure that your gun was not lost or stolen. Therefore your gun could never be used to commit a crime. You yourself pointed out that many gun safes are not actually effective in safeguarding a gun. Under my plan you would be careful only to choose a safe that actually did safeguard a gun if the alternative was the chance of a jail sentence.

My plan also makes registration of guns much more attractive, and registered guns are much less likely to be used in the commission of a crime by their owners, because they are too easily traced to the owner.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that the state is recommending a safe and then saying it is not sufficient. The state's laws are not what we are talking about here. We are talking about proposals on how to make people register their guns if that becomes a requirement, and about how to prevent guns from being used to commit crimes. The state's recommendations about safes are not part of this discussion.

[geek_sabre]

68. Hmm...

So I report all of my guns stolen.

[Squinch]

72. Only if they have already been registered. Otherwise you don't get the pass.

And if your registered guns are reported stolen and they are subsequently used by you in self defense, you face a penalty or jail time as well. Which, why then have them if you can't use them for self defense?

[Riftaxe]

61. They won't, the folks advocating prohibition 90 years ago....

did not come up with a workable strategy , they lost then and are the same prudes,

I can understand urbanites feelings, i just discount them, i have lived in the inner city and have lived in rural places....I deliberately chose living in a rural setting.

While i cannot prove living in the suburbs makes one an idiot, I cannot prove it does not....the censor patrol on this site pretty much makes it obvious

[Pholus]

65. Ahhh, more apocalyptic fantasies and threats...

I am unsurprised that a 2A type cannot frame an issue in any other way.

Read the OP and learn: The far edge of the 2A crowd are driven by these things. Pervasive fear of a remote hypothetical threat (of "ban or registration" in this case) and the need to give their own threats to show they have control (an implied rebellion).

Bushmaster certainly knows what I'm talking about. These guys respond well to the MAN CARD ad campaign precisely because it associates the product with people who fear nothing and are respected. Who the gun owners want to be.

In the end the themes are fear and control just like always.

Oh there is some rhetorical cover, hardly clever, in the OP -- in this case a concern troll -- but the intention is clear and most people will get what it says viscerally. It directly translates as "Who's gonna take me on -- you pansy liberals?" I saw this *exact* sentiment before back in the UN black helicopter 90's -- fairly standard right-wing trope for the time and repeated nearly word per word here. It boggles the mind that it is around 20 years later!

And why does my obsession with your motivation matter? When you start prying apart the psychology of mass shooters, what motivated them? Oh yeah, there is fear and the need to control. It is simply a matter of degree guys. Fear and Control. I despise your gun hugging because it forces me as your neighbor to have to worry about your mental state.

So, in the end, that is my issue with guns. You.

[brindleboxer]

77. Since so many replies have expressed such confidence in the enforcement of such a law...

how are you going to deal with the thousands of local law enforcement agencies across the country that wouldn't enforce such a law?

[Pholus]

78. The question is for you -- how would you deal with the ones that would?

And that gets at your true nature.

[brindleboxer]

84. I'm not sure I understand your point...

do you have one? Or was this just more baseless derision of people that own guns or support gun rights? My point was that such a law would be so unpopular in rural areas that absent enforcement by federal authorities it would be pretty much meaningless in some regions. The broader point is that if you think such a law could be enforced without a huge sociopolitical rift in this country, you're mistaken.

[Pholus]

94. Your deliberate ignorance is not unexpected.

Easy to threaten given your assumption that all local law enforcement would be on your side.

Harder to state in public what you fantasize you would do if they weren't.

That was the implicit threat of the OP and it is your implicit threat. I believe Charlton Heston has your battle cry for this, does he not? Something about cold dead fingers?

[brindleboxer]

103. Just keep thinking...

that all gun owners are violent paranoiacs. We're not. And we vote. I'm not actually worried about such legislation (nor do I fantasize about it, as you seem to suggest), because it doesn't have anywhere near the support necessary.

Your views on guns are in the minority in this country, which is probably frustrating. It's understandable. It's probably frustrating too that a large number of people in your own party disagree with you on this issue, and will probably prevent the passage of legislation which you really want. I would simply caution against letting that frustration manifest into rabid antipathy towards those groups which contain members of your own party, or Democrats are going to lose not only on the gun issue but on the issues that really matter (and ironically the ones that really affect violent crime) like poverty.

[MightyMopar]

107. 78% of Democrats support gun control. Electorate is swinging to non white people who agree with Dems

www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57559669/poll-support-for-stricter-gun-control-at-10-year-high/?pageNum=2

[brindleboxer]

108. "Gun control"...

is a very broad concept. A majority of American oppose a renewed AWB and something like 76% oppose a ban on handgun ownership. You're nowhere near getting the consensus necessary for the kind of restrictions that you seem to want, but thinking that you are seems to mitigate your cultural angst a little, so more power to you I guess.

Interestingly, I support increased gun control. I also support laws allowing concealed carry and oppose an assault weapons ban. It's not a binary issue, unless you see the only two positions as 1) "OMG guns are bad", and 2) everything else.

[MightyMopar]

109. I'll take a little at a time as the the country becomes more urabn and less reactionary whites

Right now I'll settle for funding the ATF, getting a strong director and vigorously enforcing the weak gun laws we have. Next I'd make the pukes and their DINO allies defends the NRA and try to pass whatever we can and keep at it every day.

It's time to make gun ownership culturally repugnant like smoking, poor hygiene or old guys marrying 16 years olds. I think many of the techniques the anti-abortion movement uses against doctors and clinics can be used against gun stores.

[brindleboxer]

110. Out of curiosity...

would you support a federal law banning the driving of a car after the consumption of any amount of alcohol?

[MightyMopar]

148. I'm for doing what France is doing, putting breathlyzers in new cars

Ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure. many nations have zero tolerence, I'm ok with that.

[PavePusher]

115. Racism, classism and geographical bigotry. Stay classy now. n/t

[fanjunkare]

168. Please clarify.

Are you openly calling for burning down, murdering owners, or bombing gun stores? Because that's what the antis did to those good clinics and doctors, and it's absolutely repugnant someone would even think to use those tactics on anyone else. That's why the anti-abortion crowd has failed for the most part, their murderous violence. And you want the gun control crowd to suffer the same fate? Whose side are you on?

[Pholus]

122. I will keep thinking as long as some of you keep providing evidence.

As this farfetched, fantasy tinged OP does. I'm well aware that gun paranoiacs vote -- seen it in my own family. Single issue voting in fact. Seems strange that would top the agenda given how many actual substantive problems we face. But then again, guns seem to become an object of inordinate obsession and desire for far too many. As I said above -- guns are all about fear and control.

Now as far as "popular support" my views are a minority in the gungeon certainly. In the country, that's much less certain. Plus that's always subject to change as time goes on. That uncertainty about the future causes fear and that fear motivates posts like the OP and its resultant implicit threats are meant as a balm against the fear for the true believers. It motivates your posts as well. We both know that if my views were truly so marginal, you wouldn't be wasting your time on me.

Finally, I also appreciate your cautions about antipathy towards members of your own party. It is comforting to realize that this must mean you're speaking from the mature position that the entire body of Democratic ideals outweighs any single issue and that you'd hold firm as a party member regardless of any gun legislation you might not personally agree with. After all, if you'd quit the party over guns were you actually ever truly a Democrat at all?

[brindleboxer]

126. By that same token...

one could point out the mountains of evidence provided by individual adherents that the gun control movement is dominated by naive, histrionic nitwits obsessed with cultural antipathy for rural, working class people. Just like guns themselves, gun control is similarly "an object of inordinate obsession and desire." This debate is dominated on both sides by radical idealogues and idiots. And some can't help but characterize anyone who doesn't agree with them as fear-ridden cretins clinging to a cultural totem. Their is a legitimate intellectual debate to be had about this issue, but it's not on the fringes.

And no, the party's ideals do not necessarily outweigh any single issue. Voters, even liberals, can identify which issues are important to them and vote accordingly. Supporting gun control itself probably wouldn't be enough to make me not vote for a Democrat, but the condescension, dismissiveness and political grandstanding just might be.

[Pholus]

143. disagree = "condescension, dismissiveness and political grandstanding"

Been there, heard it all before.

[MightyMopar]

81. Replace them with those who will enforce the laws like we have in the past

I'm sure black and Hispanic people will line up for the jobs.

[brindleboxer]

88. You seem to think...

that minorities are going to be anti-gun. This is not exactly the case. Urban people are anti-gun. Minority populations are concentrated in urban areas, but in rural areas minorities frequently own guns and don't really deviate much from the general population on issues like this.

I'm also not sure how you would replace police departments and sheriff's departments across the country.

[MightyMopar]

91. Polling strongly support the assertion that blacks and Hispanics are anti-gun

Hispanics, Blacks Want Stricter Gun Laws, Polls Say

By Griselda Nevárez, Voxxi

While incidents like the shooting in Aurora, Colo., that killed 12 and injured 58 tend to revive the national debate of gun control laws, Americans continue to be split pretty evenly on the issue, according to national polls and surveys.

Among minorities, however, the gap between those who favor stronger restrictions and those who don’t is wider.

A Pew Research Center study released in April shows that, unlike the general American opinion, a majority of Latinos and blacks – the people most impacted by gun violence – support stricter gun laws.

The study found that only 29 percent of Latinos and 35 percent of blacks said protecting the rights of Americans to own guns is more important than controlling gun ownership. The response from whites was very different – 57 percent of them said protecting gun rights is more crucial than gun control.

http://www.newstaco.com/2012/07/25/hispanics-blacks-want-stricter-gun-laws-polls-say/

State cops can easily fill the void like they always do.

[gejohnston]

111. based on polls by

MAIG and VPC. Yeah, ummm I wouldn't get overly optimistic if I were you.

[MightyMopar]

120. Polls from CBS. What polls do you have?

[gejohnston]

123. Let's see the questions

and if those asked know the current laws and terminology. For example the one MAIG poll asked should there be and the most of the questions were about current laws.

USA Today poll I saw said most people oppose an AWB, don't know how they defined it.

BTW, what evidence do you have that Gallup is biased towards Republicans? Yes I read your rant before you self deleted.

[MightyMopar]

129. So you're defending Gallup on a Democratic website?

Just want it on the record. What about Rasmussen?

[gejohnston]

130. I have never heard the claim about Gallup, so it is new to me

so, I'm not defending anything. Gallup has been used by everyone for years. I have read that about Rasmussen.
All of the MAIG fans defend Frank Luntz's poll.

[MightyMopar]

133. Really? Just Google "Gallup republican bias"

[friendly_iconoclast]

135. Just Google "Frank Luntz" or "It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear"

[cantbeserious]

128. Consider Reviewing Some Asian Models - Stiff Penalties Up To And Including The Death Penalty

eom

[Puha Ekapi]

138. Killing people...

...to prevent murder. You can't be....oh, never fucking mind, you probably are.

[cantbeserious]

139. If Society Chooses To Send A Strong Message To Those That Commit Murder By Firearm

Some Asian models would seem to fit.

[Puha Ekapi]

140. I'm not Asian.

Nor am I from an Asian country. Your brand of authoritarianism sounds like the Khmer Rouge.

[cantbeserious]

142. There Are Very Stiff Penalties For Using A Fire Arm In Many Countries - Asian Countries Seem Representative

eom

[virginia mountainman]

141. Seems like the NRA was right..

Strict gun control seems to bring on genocide..

The tyrants really are coming out as of late.

Makes me really glad I have guns!

[MightyMopar]

145. Your guns scare the government less than a smartphone

Now you family and neighbors, that's a different matter

[virginia mountainman]

146. Why are they scared?

We all are armed??? My wife even has a CCW permit, and carries a gun all the time, even to the hospital where she works as a ICU supervisor.

[MightyMopar]

147. In case you break any laws and they need to protect the rest of us

[virginia mountainman]

163. Not too worried, they don't even enforce the laws already on the books..

[Warren Stupidity]

165. A fascinating thread where gungeoneers announce they are above the law because

they have gunz.

[gejohnston]

166. pot smokers do it all the time

what's your point? What are your views on civil disobedience as a form of protest?

[Warren Stupidity]

167. Pot smokers are arrested all the time.

[mwrguy]

169. Throw their ass in jail. Confiscate their property.

Same thing we do with every other criminal.

[virginia mountainman]

170. Ok, who are you going to get, to do that?

Lots of folks simply will not let you do that, especially if they believe that they are right. How are you going to get an armed person to "give up"? How are you going to confiscate their property, if they decide that they simply WON"T let anyone do it?

How are you going to get local law enforcement to do that, especially if they agree with them??

Lots of naivete I am seeing here lately..

[mwrguy]

171. Police and military.

Same as we always send.