Skip to main content

View Diary: AWB and honesty (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am told gun owners are responsible people (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dream weaver, Lilith

    I am sure most will comply with American law.

    Add in a buy-back program.

    Add in a honeymoon period, with no prosecutions.

    Add in stiff penalties after the honeymoon period.

    -----Say a $5,000 fine for simple posession of a banned firearm.

    -----Say a minimum of 10 additional years for commission of any crime while in possession of an unlawful firearm.

    A collector who keeps his banned, unsurrendered firearm in a safe results in no fines and no one dead. Bootm line: Who cares?

    Believe it or not, criminals are not dumb. Just as gang members use juvvies to commit some crimes, criminals will use non-banned firearms to avoid the automatic jail time. A .38 revolver scars people just fine, after all.

    Very dumb/violent criminals will get caught and be removed from the genral population for substantial coling-down periods.

    And the suicide-by-mass-murder fucks will have a harder time buying weapons capable of hosing down entire lecture halls.

    Sorry if there are any holes. This was concieved of any typed up in real-time. One man can think of only so many original thoughts in 10 minutes.

    •  How about targeting the criminals, period? (7+ / 0-)

      Incredibly, stiff mandatory sentences for all crimes committed with any gun. If you are a felon and possess a gun, stiff mandatory sentence...happens twice, life.  You rob someone with a gun, you shoot someone (even if they don't die), even if you pistol whip someone with a gun....if you abuse your right, you go to prison.

      You commit any crime with a gun and you don't see daylight for a very,very long time.

      Leave law abiding citizens alone with their 2A rights, under the Constitution intact.  Target the crimes and the criminals who commit them.  That is who we are going after, right?

      This is something all law abiding gun owners would be thrilled to support.  

      •  We've tried half-measures (0+ / 0-)

        This diary complains about half-measures. Effective change means new legal structures and it also means reducing the supply of hyper-lethal firearms on the civilian market.

        •  New legal structures that target law abiding gun (5+ / 0-)

          owners and still leave plenty of room for criminals to not be hindered in the least, is not the way to go.  

          We must understand that the 2A is a guaranteed right to the law abiding, and must not be infringed, and somehow that premise always seems to get lost in the mist of these discussions.  

          We must find a way to target the criminals foremost and as exclusively as possible and leave the law abiding with their Constitutional rights as untouched as we possibly can.

          It is the same idea that we have had deaths during protests, we have had cities burnt down during protests, building bombs from protesters, property destroyed by those who abused that right.  Yet, we do not ban all protests, nor repeal the 1A...nor even have debates that "if it would save even one life..." about the 1A.

            Instead, we correctly target those who abuse their rights under the 1A....exclusively.  When the "discussions" target those who protest legally or attempt to hinder those who protest legally...you will see an uproar here and elsewhere from those who use their rights without harming others.....as it should be.  That is the correct way to target...only those who harm and abuse their rights.

          The 1A and 2A are equally as important and equally as valued by those who see the Bill of Rights as guaranteed rights to the people.

          •  Yes but (0+ / 0-)

            New laws which effectively limit high-firepower guns but do not detract in the slightest from legitimate sporting needs are the way to go.

            Uou and I are in debate. Your position is: Everything you try cannot possibly work so I have proven your side can never succeed.

            Which is why I showed how easy it is to respond to that nonsense.

            •  No that is not my position. My position is that (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, gerrilea, rockhound

              it will not work against the targeted group, if indeed, we are truly targeting criminals. My position is that we must focus laws and improve laws to go after the criminals and those who use guns to harm others.  Instead of making any attempt to take guns from law abiding gun owners.

              We have already had an AWB and it failed.  It did nothing to curb crime, it did nothing to eliminate in any real way "assault weapons" from the hands of criminals.  

              This new bill will again not remove high powered weapons, as there are many, many exemptions.....there are bans on certain weapons with plastic pieces and yet the same weapon with identical firing capabilities are "ok" because they do not have a cosmetic features.  310 million weapons on the streets now at last count....over 3,000,000 new background checks in the last 2 months alone.  This will do nothing to remove guns from the streets and honestly, that is not the answer.

              The answer is to go after the criminals.  I want laws that work against the targeted group.  Criminals.

                Stiff, mandatory sentences against anybody who uses a gun in a crime.

               Life sentences, if we have to go that far, on a second offence.  

              Mental health funding and education

              Actually use the laws we have and actually enforce them to the highest limit.

              If you fail a background check because you have a felony and you know you have a felony....you ought to go to prison.

              If you are caught with a gun and you have a felony...straight to prison with a mandatory sentence is where you should go.

              Nothing I have suggested would IN ANY WAY infringe on the law abiding gun owner, who owns guns for whatever legal reason they have them for.  Hunting, target practice, to hang on the wall, defense, take pictures with, look at, collect, heirlooms....to hang beside their plague of the 2A and an American Flag....whatever.

              •  Gun owner can concede non-sporting changes (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, effective gun control laws will "affect" lawful gun owners. That is how life works. The point is, right now mild changes are being proposed, changes which do not impact sporting firearm use in the slightest. Legitimate sports shooters will be "affected" in that they cannot own 30 round magazines. But there is no sporting need for this large a magazine. "Affected" in this case in no way means "harmed".

                Yet the NRA and its gun-uncontrol allies are unwilling to make even this simple concession.

                So I am sorry, but gun ownder will simply have to accept that they will be affected. Now the issue becomes, how can we enact a new regulation system that saves lives and protects guns sports too.

                To that there has to be some give.

                •  Do you think the following should be top priority? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea

                  Do you agree with them all?  Perhaps they deserve even first in line status of any new laws?

                   

                  Stiff, mandatory sentences against anybody who uses a gun in a crime.

                   Life sentences, if we have to go that far, on a second offence.  

                  Mental health funding and education

                  Actually use the laws we have and actually enforce them to the highest limit.

                  If you fail a background check because you have a felony and you know you have a felony....you ought to go to prison.

                  If you are caught with a gun and you have a felony...straight to prison with a mandatory sentence is where you should go.

                  •  I favor debate, brainstorming, and change (0+ / 0-)

                    Existing laws obviously are fatally flawed, or else we would not need to consider new laws. So far as I am am concerned, we can start from a clean slate there.

                    The rest of your proposal concern nothing but penalties for after-the fact crime. That is not sufficient. Or else we would not be in the mes we are in.

            •  "The way to go"??? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon

              Why again?

              I really don't feel like repeating myself so, copy and past it is:

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              VP BIDEN'S WORDS:

              http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/....

                 "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what it is now," Biden said.

              So why are we pushing gun control again?

              How about living wage jobs?
              How about Universal Health care, NOT for-profit health insurance?
              How about ending the racist drug war?
              How about ending continual war?
              How about ending poverty that kills 133,000 Americans each year?

              How about anything that will stop the despair that dehumanizes us creating the conditions that lead to more violence?

              Your position has never been valid and even Joe Biden knows it.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:33:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site