What now?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Missouribound, Sep 3, 2019.

  1. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,718
    1,371
    113
    The latest shooting in Texas happened just a couple of weeks before the next Democratic debate....It gives them the topic they needed, other than hating Trump for their moment to shine.
    I've asked this question before and the thread took turns in several directions.
    But now, the pressure is on Trump, once again to do "something".
    I do not want to start a thread that argues the 2nd Amendment or rights of citizens.
    None of that. And I do not think that any new legislation would have changed the recent events or any of the events that have marred the good name of gun owners everywhere.
    But I want to ask it this way.
    Which laws / legislation would you want to see that would protect us, the lawful gun owners yet help prevent future incidents?
    I will give you my answer first. I do not think that any laws will prevent future incidents.
    The idea of universal background checks is yet another law that only the law abiding will follow. But in the era of "feel good" philosophy that the democrats seem to use as their platform, Trump will not doubt be put on the spot to do something.
    Keeping in mind that unless he does do something.....he may lose in 2020.
    If you are OK with that, you need not respond. But if he has been a president you think should have a second term, as I do, then offer up some suggestions.
    Put in another way, "Put up or shut up"
     
  2. sheriffjohn

    sheriffjohn Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,326
    2,289
    113
    MY best advice is to immediately fire up his U.S. Attorneys publicly to enforce the laws we already have. Put teeth in our present law or the law will bite him in his shorts. Swear off Golf for a month and throw the twitter gig down the toilet.
     

  3. towboater

    towboater Well-Known Member

    5,994
    2,669
    113
    As of now I don't think there are any demorats that can defeat Trump. I think there could be a last minute candidate.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
  4. sheepdawg

    sheepdawg Well-Known Member Supporter

    2,874
    7,586
    113
    Last I saw murder is against the law and the penalty for it can get pretty extreme.

    Enforce the laws and give out maximum penalties especially in cases with repeat offenders. If it takes building more prisons do it.
     
  5. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,718
    1,371
    113
    I am a Trump supporter. But I watched the democrat debates and I only saw one candidate worthy of actually being considered for a job such as president....and that is Tulsi Gabbard.
    I am actually surprised that she didn't go farther with public since she seems to be the only one not pushing a socialist agenda. At least that is my take on her.

    But back to gun laws. It's funny that the left is always calling for gun laws and boasting that "nobody is above the law" and then they do the exact opposite and refuse to work with ICE and create sanctuary cities. They will certainly bring up the last shooting incident while dodging real problems which have taken over every liberal run city.
    It doesn't matter what Trump does or doesn't do. The media will tear him apart because of bias. If there was actual truth in media people would be able to make sound judgements as to who they want to run the country rather than have to rely on scripted sound bites whose sole purpose is to create false narratives.
     
  6. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    13,527
    2,230
    113
    Laws will only affect the law abiding citizens.
     
  7. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    14,446
    3,467
    113
    Mandatory carry
     
    kfox75 and Caveman Jim like this.
  8. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,947
    8,894
    113
    Nothing is going to prevent all of the mass murders. Using that as the only standard to judge any actions is not a rational approach. It says, that since no effort will remove the possibility of mass shootings, than no changes are necessary. The people are no longer buying that argument, and the politicians are coming around. If the goals are to reduce the numbers and frequencies of the kinds of incidents then there are proven methods that have been used in other countries that are similar to us. The people of the US are coming to the conclusion that the current state of affairs is untenable and with every mass shooting, more and more people are going to demand action.

    Even in my home, "The Gunshine State," there have been some changes and there are some serious proposals being floated in a state that has a Republican Governor, House, Senate. and a state that was a Trump supporter. They are talking about treating "assault weapons" as we now treat machine guns. There is no doubt in my mind that making these types of weapons more difficult to procure will help, but not solve the problem, and that "helping" is a reasonable goal.

    So, now, I will PUT UP. (For the sake of the usual rock throwers, I will save you the chore of typing and stipulate that, for this argument, I am a Communist, A Fascist, A Socialist, a Muslim, a Hindu, an "illegal", a heretic, a Democrat, my dog has fleas, that my Mama wears combat boots, that I am ignorant and retarded that I hate America and the Constitution and that I smell funny) Now, that established, please try to stick to the subject.

    Since I have recently come to believe that easy access to "assault weapons" is indeed a part of the problem, my opinion and suggestion would be to:

    * Establish a legal definition of "assault weapons" to eliminate owner's fears of losing their Grandaddy's tube-fed .22, or Garand.

    * Grandfather the ownership of existing "assault weapons" but require registration to maintain legal ownership. Establish a "free" identifying device that would be applied to existing weapons, or carried on the person of the owner, to readily identify "legal" guns.

    * Deal harshly with those who do not comply. Jail time, loss of the right to own any firearm.

    * Offer a generous lifetime buyback program and amnesty for the buy back of previously unregistered weapons so that if Mama finds your illegal assault weapon under your bed, she can turn it in for the money without fear of prosecution.

    * Ban the sale of new assault weapons, or the transfer of grandfathered weapons. When the current "cold dead hands" owners die off, the weapons die off with them. Associate the registration with the Social Security death registry. Even after death, the buyback program would be available for the survivors.

    *Extend the proposed laws to include "machine guns" so that the rich will not be exempt from the laws that the working class have to live with.

    * Pay for the buyback program with a tax on the sale of firearms, accessories and ammo.
     
  9. danf_fl

    danf_fl Retired Supporter

    13,527
    2,230
    113
    Chain, as I read this, am I understanding that you want the government to have a listing of those firearms in the hands of individual citizens? Something like a gun registry? Isn't that what is used to confiscate firearms by governments?
     
    Kodeman, kfox75 and Caveman Jim like this.
  10. RKtullahoma

    RKtullahoma Well-Known Member Supporter

    312
    431
    63
     
  11. RKtullahoma

    RKtullahoma Well-Known Member Supporter

    312
    431
    63
    About the best I have seen, and Big Bill Barr has the by-heaven brass 12 pounder cannonballs to get it done and make it stick. Definitely lose the golf... but step up the twitter.

    Adams said that the new nation should be a nation of LAWS, not men. I think he meant that the country shouldn't end up dynastic. And, in large part, with, of course, some exceptions, we've managed to stay away from it.

    Modify gun law to be postcard simple. Go easy on honest clerical errors. Pedal to the metal with the truly bad'uns.

    Make obeying the present laws not just neutral, but positive. I seem to recall some state that issued a rebate on background checks if, within some period of time, the owner took the weapon to the local PD or Bureau office and had a round fired for ballistics. The record on the round would ONLY be used if a match on ballistics in a crime was made.

    4473s are supposed to be kept on file for TWENTY years. Having had to dig thru back years in compliance with BATF RFI's was no picnic, as the store seemed to change filing methods every couple of years. Going to chainfire's lurid and frankly orwellian vision of a gun registry using those records would be a process wasteful of time, effort and manpower. It would be fraught with the possibilities of errors both accidental and deliberate. Never mind the Fourth Amendment violations possible.
     
    kfox75 likes this.
  12. Rentacop

    Rentacop Well-Known Member

    2,516
    1,606
    113
    May I have permission to post your proposals as satire ?
     
    Missouribound and kfox75 like this.
  13. kfox75

    kfox75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    10,196
    5,892
    113
    Um, aren't there laws for biding that kind of registry, on the federal level? With the exceptions made for NFA items?

    And let's not even get into the number of states that have laws against registries of that type. Mine included. Yes, the PSP is the Point of Contact for BC here, but, records are to be destroyed under state law, within 24 hours.

    Mainly because of the reason pointed out by Dan in the quoted post.
     
    danf_fl likes this.
  14. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,718
    1,371
    113
    Buyback is not an accurate description. The government never owned my firearms.
    And be realistic. Anyone willing to part with their firearms falls into two categories:
    1. Those that would never use it for any criminal activity.
    2. Those who are trying to get rid of evidence for a crime already committed.
    Neither would have an affect on any future crimes
    .
     
    kfox75 likes this.
  15. Rentacop

    Rentacop Well-Known Member

    2,516
    1,606
    113
    So, under Chainfire's dream, we get to " buy back " our guns with our own money ( tax dollars ) , we try more gun control because it never worked before : More of the magic elixir . We give up even more freedom in exchange for worthless guarantees ....
    Whatever happened to Constitutional Rights ? You have no right to run background checks on law-abiding citizens ( 9th Amendment privacy right ) . You have no right to confiscate the property of law-abiding citizens ( 5th Amendment ) . You have no right to call something an assault weapon in law if the term is undefinable .
    Even if this idiocy were practical, it would still be unconstitutional and therefore...ILLEGAL ! Got that ?
     
    ellis36 likes this.
  16. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,718
    1,371
    113
    And that would work. But you have approximately 55 to 65% of the population that doesn't have a gun and that also is their right, not to have one.
    But think about that. The majority of crime happens in cities where law abiding citizens don't own guns because the either simply don't want them or the laws there make it so difficult for them to get them that they don't feel it's worth the hassle.
    Gun crimes are never prevented by gun laws. But Chainfire made the point that you need to punish those crimes more severely. But where the gun crimes happen the most are in places where there are no witnesses willing to come forward. Chicago is a perfect example of this. By the end of the year there will be no less than 2500 shootings in Chicago....and 2250 of them will go unpunished. Chicago has less than a 10% conviction rate. People in the inner city won't call the police or help them with investigation.
    And when Obama started his anti-police attitude it didn't help.
     
  17. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,441
    5,976
    113
    The government does not enforce the laws we already have. Any reasonably competent machinist can build a sophisticated firearm like an AR or self loading handgun. Then there is smuggling. There will be a black market for firearms. Prohibition proved that. There are all kinds of how to videos on the internet for destructive devices. Every bit of proposed legislation is feel good and accomplishes nothing useful.
     
    kfox75 likes this.
  18. Missouribound

    Missouribound Well-Known Member

    1,718
    1,371
    113
    Correct. And these are the the same people who want to take away plastic straws, regulate the size of your soft drink and eliminate fossil fuel to "save the planet".
    (Same people who fly around in their private jets)
     
  19. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,441
    5,976
    113
    Make everyone legally responsible for their own safety. If you get robbed or your house gets broken into it is your problem. It is your problem anyway but leftists think the police will save them. They will show up later and take pictures. A 110 lb woman with a firearm can take down a 200 lb intruder or multiple intruders. Make firearms and training mandatory even if it takes a universal draft into the armed forces.
     
    danf_fl likes this.
  20. TheDreadnought

    TheDreadnought Active Member

    187
    217
    43
    BD69462B-90A9-42B8-969A-33D3029693C7.jpeg

    How about we focus on the real problem areas:

    1. The overwhelming majority of “gun violence” is suicides. How about we do focus on suicide prevention?

    2. Of the shootings that are left, the overwhelming majority are inner-city gang violence. How about mandatory 25 year sentences for shooting someone with a gun while being part of a gang?

    3. To deter use of guns by gangs, how about we enforce a law that says charges for a felon caught with a gun CANNOT be dropped as they routinely are today?

    Those laws will target 95%+ of the ACTUAL shootings that occur on a daily basis, including the “mass” shootings that are predominately committed by young black men. But of course, no liberal wants to see that happen.
     
    JTJ likes this.