Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This statement was made by Obama back in 2008 before becoming president.
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen…. We can work together to enact common-sense laws … so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.”
Sounds nice - but how do you do that? How you keep guns away from criminals?
At a point in time, a criminal makes a first offense. Before that, he is a law abiding citizen. How do you take away the right for this person to own a gun when he hasn't done anything?
OK - now the person commits a crime. Is the criminal a felon? If yes- then that person is already banned from owning a firearm - unless a pardon is granted. If no - then there's a process required to be allowed to own a gun.
It's seems like the law is in place already for what Obama stated back then with reference to criminals. Why do we need more control?
Maybe we need to be tougher on the people when the crimes are committed instead of concerning ourselves with the guns.
Maybe we need to act more quickly with regards to the justice system instead of allowing a bunch of time to pass before the court case begins.
Maybe we need to find out how existing criminals get the guns and cut off that supply chain instead of insisting that free people who are not criminals give up our guns. Oh, I forgot - our government sells guns, don't they?
Actually, many criminals get guns because so many gun sales are not required to go through background checks. That's what Manchin-Toomey was about. It would have required background checks for sales that occur at gun shows or that result from an advertised sale.
Oh, but, wait.
If all guns are confiscated from American citizens, then won't the other people who are left with guns be known criminals?
So then, after all Americans' guns have been taken away, surely after a couple of years of confiscating the guns which weren't confiscated on the first go-round from law abiding citizens, and were left in the hands of criminals, all America will be rid of guns forever, and we'll be a gun-free country from that point forward.
YAY!!
That'll work. That's what they'll tell you will work.
Hold the gun firmly in both hands, make sure the front sight nestles into the notch of the rear sight, center both upon the criminal's center of mass, take a breath and let part of it out, then slowly squeeze the trigger, taking care not to jerk the gun away from the criminal's image in the sights.
Works every time.
Now that's "gun control".
Any other questions I can answer for you?
No one else has even come close to answering the question correctly.
At a point in time, a criminal makes a first offense. Before that, he is a law abiding citizen. How do you take away the right for this person to own a gun when he hasn't done anything?
For a federal gun rights disability the person must have been "convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;".
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
OK - now the person commits a crime. Is the criminal a felon? If yes- then that person is already banned from owning a firearm
But the criminal justice system is off the rails.
The system is focused on clearance rates not justice and certainly not punishment of criminal conduct.
Case in point, St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:
.
"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.
Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.
In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.
So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."
.
And I might add, never become a prohibited person as far as gun rights disability goes so these repeat armed criminals pass the NICS background check . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
It's seems like the law is in place already for what Obama stated back then with reference to criminals. Why do we need more control?
Of course the laws are already there. I had to laugh when I read Obama's 23 directives. The first four are covered under a law signed in 2008 by GW Bush and with NRA support that actually did improve background checks by demanding states submit data . . . and was of course ignored by them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Maybe we need to be tougher on the people when the crimes are committed instead of concerning ourselves with the guns.
Maybe we need to act more quickly with regards to the justice system instead of allowing a bunch of time to pass before the court case begins.
Anything is better than catch and release of violent weapon offenders. To even propose new laws impacting the law-abiding while real, proven dangerous criminals are ushered through a revolving door is unconscionable and something only enlightened liberals could put forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Maybe we need to find out how existing criminals get the guns and cut off that supply chain instead of insisting that free people who are not criminals give up our guns.
Again, the laws are on the books to do that. Will it be easy? No . . . Detecting straw purchase is difficult; the offenders are without criminal histories and fly under the radar of law-enforcement. The only hopes of catching them is to disrupt the trafficking methods they use.
The easiest way of doing that in the past was the ATF multiple purchase report generated whenever anyone buys more than one gun in a 5 day period. These reports are sent to local law-enforcement for follow-up (unless, like Philly where I live, they request ATF stop sending the reports).
That many states have taken the stupid path of enacting "one gun a month" laws, has made investigating straw-buys next to impossible. The only thing that can be hoped for is the ATF discovering a short "time to crime" pattern that can be traced back to a buyer or buyers or being notified of a gun trafficking operation through some other law-enforcement agency's operations (i.e., drug enforcement).
The simplest and least disruptive way of disrupting criminal behavior is to just punish criminals when you catch them and not let them go. Accelerated case disposals do not benefit society or lower crime rates; all those schemes do is make prosecutors and the judicial system "look" efficient.
The hug-a-thug culture must be extinguished; soft judges and prosecutors make hardened criminals and the unencumbered criminal activity is held up as evidence that these inefficient, irresponsible government agencies should be given more and more power.
Again, something only enlightened liberals could support.
Last edited by Jeerleader; 05-17-2013 at 09:01 AM..
This statement was made by Obama back in 2008 before becoming president.
“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen…. We can work together to enact common-sense laws … so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.”
Sounds nice - but how do you do that? How you keep guns away from criminals?
At a point in time, a criminal makes a first offense. Before that, he is a law abiding citizen. How do you take away the right for this person to own a gun when he hasn't done anything?
OK - now the person commits a crime. Is the criminal a felon? If yes- then that person is already banned from owning a firearm - unless a pardon is granted. If no - then there's a process required to be allowed to own a gun.
It's seems like the law is in place already for what Obama stated back then with reference to criminals. Why do we need more control?
Maybe we need to be tougher on the people when the crimes are committed instead of concerning ourselves with the guns.
Maybe we need to act more quickly with regards to the justice system instead of allowing a bunch of time to pass before the court case begins.
Maybe we need to find out how existing criminals get the guns and cut off that supply chain instead of insisting that free people who are not criminals give up our guns. Oh, I forgot - our government sells guns, don't they?
According to gun nuts, and the NRA which is the mouthpiece of gun manufacturers and sellers, and against the reality that many nations do manage to stop criminals from getting guns in large numbers, there is nothing that can be done.
So why try according to gun nuts, and the NRA which is the mouthpiece of the gun manufacturers and gun sellers.
Much like those who were opposed to gay marriage and thought, they could never be defeated, the gun manufacturers and the NRA and gun sellers, will be on the wrong side of history and ultimately political losers.
The math doesn't work for them. Fewer and fewer households own guns. In fact, the majority of households don't have a gun in it. It is only a matter of time until that reality manifests itself politically.
What if the criminals are the government, police and agencys. Who gives guns to drug dealers, murders and terrorists you think they stay locked up in some police station somewhere.
What if the criminals really are those who are suppose to protect us.
Think about it.
What if the only thing keeping average americans safe is the little known fact that even with complete break down of society and the government ignoring of the constitution, free men will die trying to keep freedom and government doesnt want any part of another civil war at home. Its much easier to control us with TV, schooling, taxes and debt. :-) Guns are tools and government knows full well Americans have so many guns the idea of getting the military or just about anyone to complete in act any kind of "order" will be pointless until they ban all guns. As our wonderful president said, its about hunters and sportsman right. ;-) Every Natural disaster or lone gunman disaster is another test run on how well the enact thug like process for keeping us safe and figure out how many guns they can grab in the process. Its funy how the lairs in washington, IRS and the president get to tell us how to live, eat, and defense ourselves. Criminals surely work in DC.
People are going to steal and rape and murder anyways so why make it illegal for them?
I believe those are already illegal. Another law making it illegal cancels out the first ones? Maybe making Woman going out in public will cut down on the raping? Make them wear DOJ approved chastity belts?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
