Colion Noir: Liberals want to stack one law on top of another to push out Second Amendment

[Member 53328]

I'm guessing you don't vote then?

I do. But if we want this thread to continue we may want to drop this discussion. Certain individuals are sensitive and this thread will be locked if we stray too far. I'll leave it at that.

 

[WalkingTall]

I do. But if we want this thread to continue we may want to drop this discussion. Certain individuals are sensitive and this thread will be locked if we stray too far. I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough, on topic: color me shocked anti gun political positions are trying to push anti gun laws. I just did not see that coming.

 

[WillametteWill]

Since my post is the only one with actual text prior to your post @Andy54Hawken , I apologize if "insane" was too harsh. It was not directed at a political party since city councils are generally non-partisan, but rather at any human that:

• Admits to passing a law that will have no effect on reducing crime
• Creating a law that specifically imposes on a group that does not believe as they do
• Taxes something protected by the 2nd amendment (except in their state)
• Requires "insurance" for s specific type of liability, again, because the "feel" something is dangerous
• Does not do anything to address the specific nature of their crime problem
• Created a law from a terrible crime because they had to do "something"
• Allows officers to confiscate guns from non-compliant residents, not because they did something violent, but because they did not register, pay a fee or insure themselves (by the way, for a type of insurance that could be impossible to obtain)

I completely respect your direction and in the future I'll just post what they are doing and let everyone decide on the correct verbiage for the actions. I think Mr. Noir did that anyway.
My sincerely humble apology,
Will

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Since my post is the only one with actual text prior to your post @Andy54Hawken , I apologize if "insane" was too harsh. It was not directed at a political party since city councils are generally non-partisan, but rather at any human that:

• Admits to passing a law that will have no effect on reducing crime
• Creating a law that specifically imposes on a group that does not believe as they do
• Taxes something protected by the 2nd amendment (except in their state)
• Requires "insurance" for s specific type of liability, again, because the "feel" something is dangerous
• Does not do anything to address the specific nature of their crime problem
• Created a law from a terrible crime because they had to do "something"
• Allows officers to confiscate guns from non-compliant residents, not because they did something violent, but because they did not register, pay a fee or insure themselves (by the way, for a type of insurance that could be impossible to obtain)

I completely respect your direction and in the future I'll just post what they are doing and let everyone decide on the correct verbiage for the actions. I think Mr. Noir did that anyway.
My sincerely humble apology,
Will

No need to apologize...your first post and this one , are well worded and just fine.

My first post here ....was mostly a reminder to all....
That the use of certain terms are against forum rules when said / posted insultingly ....even if they are used in a posted link.

My first post was not meant for anyone in particular.
Andy

 

[nammac]

Interesting, liability insurance and a fee (tax) to exercise a civil right, in this case the Second Amendment…. Me thinks, should this find its way through the courts, it most likely would not stand up to constitutional scrutiny….

 

[RedRover]

With all due respect and not intending to 'break the rules', but I don't know of any true conservative, republicans who constantly seek to undermine our divinely given rights as spelled out in the Preamble to the US Constitution. But hey, what do I know...

Well, the Patriot Act comes to mind.

It's well understood which side of aisle is more upfront about government control and infringement upon our rights, but that surely doesn't exonerate the other side of the aisle; which is also complicit in stripping us of our inalienable rights.

Both wings belong to the same bird.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Laws are only effective if someone wishes to abide by them.
Criminals , by their actions do not abide by laws...
So adding more laws won't prevent crime , reduce violence or anything else.

Also it has been said to not judge a whole group by the actions of a few within a group.
Judging all gun owners by the actions of a few within their group is somehow okay...?

With that said...

Criminals are not gun owners...as in they don't "own" the firearm they use in their crimes.
So why should gun owners have to suffer the consequences for the actions of criminals...?

Consequences such as more laws , bans , requirements and the like that are going to be by-passed by the criminal...the guy actually causing the problem...But we as gun owners will be made to obey.
Andy

 

[RedRover]

Laws are only effective if someone wishes to abide by them.
Criminals , by their actions do not abide by laws...
So adding more laws won't prevent crime , reduce violence or anything else.

Also it has been said to not judge a whole group by the actions of a few within a group.
Judging all gun owners by the actions of a few within their group is somehow okay...?

With that said...

Criminals are not gun owners...as in they don't "own" the firearm they use in their crimes.
So why should gun owners have to suffer the consequences for the actions of criminals...?

Consequences such as more laws , bans , requirements and the like that are going to be by-passed by the criminal...the guy actually causing the problem...But we as gun owners will be made to obey.
Andy

It really is a case of the jerks that ruin it for everyone, coupled with this inane thinking that complex problems can be simply fixed by throwing darts at a wall (enacting more and more laws) hoping one might hit the mark.

I see laws as 'effective' if they are actually enforced, and harsh penalties applied.

Look at countries where they cut one's balls off for spitting on the street (hyperbole). Guess what? There's not a lot of people spitting in the streets over there.

Make crimes committed with firearms among the severest of penalties. Rob someone with a firearm? 20-year minimum. Criminally assault someone with a firearm 30-year minimum. Murder someone with a firearm - Life w/ no chance of parole.

We have enough laws. We need to enforce them, and make the penalties harsher. Violent criminals belong in jail, and those thinking about becoming a violent criminal; they might want to seriously consider the consequences.

The issue is that there are certain legislators that feel that such harsh penalties would disproportionally affect those perceived as being disadvantaged in society.

I say hogwash. You put the incentive out there that "mess around and some of the best years of your life are going to be making license plates and busting up rocks in the clink...."

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I see laws as 'effective' if they are actually enforced, and harsh penalties applied.

So then....is it the law that is effective or the penalty that is effective...?

In any event...I do agree with the notion of enforcing the existing laws , rather than making new one.
Andy

 

[Member 53328]

Laws are only effective if someone wishes to abide by them.
Criminals , by their actions do not abide by laws...
So adding more laws won't prevent crime , reduce violence or anything else.

Also it has been said to not judge a whole group by the actions of a few within a group.
Judging all gun owners by the actions of a few within their group is somehow okay...?

With that said...

Criminals are not gun owners...as in they don't "own" the firearm they use in their crimes.
So why should gun owners have to suffer the consequences for the actions of criminals...?

Consequences such as more laws , bans , requirements and the like that are going to be by-passed by the criminal...the guy actually causing the problem...But we as gun owners will be made to obey.
Andy

"Criminals are not gun owners" are you stating that people who abide by legalities never commit crimes with firearms legally purchased? Sadly humans are unpredictable and emotional individuals who can and will commit crimes (depending on situation, emotion, mental state, ect.) with a legally purchased firearm. People can not be put in a box. Sadly we as Americans pay the price of others short comings. Whether starting in a legal manner or not.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

"Criminals are not gun owners" are you stating that people who abide by legalities never commit crimes with firearms legally purchased? Sadly humans are unpredictable and emotional individuals who can commit crimes (depending on situation, emotion, mental state, ect.) with a legally purchased firearm. People can not be put in a box. Sadly we as Americans pay the price of others short comings. Whether starting in a legal manner or not.

No I am not.
Nor was that my intent of my comment or post.

Criminals are not gun owners in the sense that they actually "own" the gun they use in their crimes.
"own" as in legally purchased or otherwise legally obtained their firearms.

Now do folks who legally own firearms commit crimes...yes....but then they cease to be gun owners and become criminals.

In any event...i will bet that you and I will not agree so it may be best if we just "ignore" each other.
Andy

 

[Member 53328]

No I am not.
Nor was that my intent of my comment or post.

Criminals are not gun owners in the sense that they actually "own" the gun they use in their crimes.
"own" as in legally purchased or otherwise legally obtained their firearms.

Now do folks who legally own firearms commit crimes...yes....but then they cease to be gun owners and become criminals.

In any event...i will bet that you and I will not agree so it may be best if we just "ignore" each other.
Andy

Actually I agree with your statement. But thank you for the quick judgement of me and my opinions. I just didn't understand where you were coming from….. I'm all for criminals (violent felonies) having the right/privilege of owning firearms being stripped away.

 

[RedRover]

So then....is it the law that is effective or the penalty that is effective...?

In any event...I do agree with the notion of enforcing the existing laws , rather than making new one.
Andy

Of course it's the penalty that is the deterrent. Why don't I drill out a third hole in my lower receivers and install DIASs? It's because I'd rather not spend 10 years of my life away from my family.

How many people that get a 'denial' on the 4473 get a follow up visit by OSP (or WSP) to investigate a little further? I'm not sure of the actual #s, but I've read somewhere that it is a very small percentage.

What exactly is my $10 paying for? Is the background check law to see if I'm not prohibited, or was it 'sold as' a tool to prevent those deemed prohibited?

Most of these new laws are as Mr. Noir stated. They are punitive. They aren't really about getting to the issue of fighting violent crime. They are political in nature, and designed to make being a lawful firearms owner as difficult as possible. They're enacted to deter one from exercising the right to be responsible for their(and their family's) own safety, and instead be reliant upon the government(be it at the local, state or federal level) for that safety.

 

[WalkingTall]

Actually I agree with your statement. But thank you for the quick judgement of me and my opinions. I just didn't understand where you were coming from….. I'm all for criminals (violent felonies) having the right/privilege of owning firearms being stripped away.

Yea gotta agree that prejudgment is not excellent treatment. But on the actual topic of criminals not being gun owners seems a little hypocritical from a 2A non infringement point of view. Just like San Jose, hey we don't like you're gun ownership, guess what we'll make a law that gets you a felon record and make sure you can't own guns… slippery slope supporting unquestionable laws that end up stripping rights like the 2A and voting. I agree some people probably shouldn't own guns, but maybe we should view this with a more critical lens on an individual basis. There's a lot of felons that are non violent offenders who never hurt anyone. Why should they not have a gun or right to protect themselves.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Of course it's the penalty that is the deterrent. Why don't I drill out a third hole in my lower receivers and DIASs? It's because I'd rather not spend 10 years of my life away from my family.

How many people that get a 'denial' on the 4473 get a follow up visit by OSP (or WSP) to investigate a little further? I'm not sure of the actual #s, but I've read somewhere that it is a very small percentage.

What exactly is my $10 paying for? Is the background check law to see if I'm not prohibited, or was it 'sold as' a tool to prevent those deemed prohibited?

Most of these new laws are as Mr. Noir stated. They are punitive. They aren't really about getting to the issue of fighting violent crime. They are political in nature, and designed to make being a lawful firearms owner as difficult as possible. They're enacted to deter one from exercising the right to be responsible for their(and their family's) own safety, and instead be reliant upon the government(be it at the local, state or federal level) for that safety.

Which is why I said :
Laws are only effective if someone wishes to abide by them....fear of penalty is a actual deterrent.
( One of many I would guess )
In any case...I think we are on the same chapter if not page itself...so to speak.
Andy

 

[Member 53328]

Yea gotta agree that prejudgment is not excellent treatment. But on the actual topic of criminals not being gun owners seems a little hypocritical from a 2A non infringement point of view. Just like San Jose, hey we don't like you're gun ownership, guess what we'll make a law that gets you a felon record and make sure you can't own guns… slippery slope supporting unquestionable laws that end up stripping rights like the 2A and voting. I agree some people probably shouldn't own guns, but maybe we should view this with a more critical lens on an individual basis. There's a lot of felons that are non violent offenders who never hurt anyone. Why should they not have a gun or right to protect themselves.

Hence the reason I said violent felonies.

 

[WalkingTall]

Hence the reason I said violent felonies.

Fair enough, I must have missed that my mistake. I definitely don't agree that a straight felon label means no gun rights. Shoot we got 20+ year felons in prison for a dime bag, that's just a joke of justice. Or even white collar crimes where not a one red blood drop shed.

 

[Member 53328]

Fair enough, I must have missed that my mistake. I definitely don't agree that a straight felon label means no gun rights. Shoot we got 20+ year felons in prison for a dime bag, that's just a joke of justice. Or even white collar crimes where not a one red blood drop shed.

Yea. Anyone in prison for weed should be released immediately if there were no other crimes committed in my opinion. Especially if the state in which they were arrested has made marijuana legal. I know it's federally illegal but there are alot of people sitting in prison who shouldn't be and alot of people who should that simply aren't. The justice system isn't exactly fail proof.

 

[RedRover]

Which is why I said :
Laws are only effective if someone wishes to abide by them....fear of penalty is a actual deterrent.
( One of many I would guess )
In any case...I think we are on the same chapter if not page itself...so to speak.
Andy

I have a story to tell.

My brother and I grew up being raised by a single dad. He worked his butt off to support us, but we still were below the poverty line growing up. We always had what we needed, but often not much else.

Being that he was working full-time, I was unsupervised after-school starting at a pretty young age -- These days it would likely be considered criminal child abandonment.

I learned how to shoplift from one of the bad influences in my neighborhood. First it was candy, then as I grew a little older; it was music cassettes and GI-Joe action figures.

Well one day, when I was around 11 or 12 y.o., it was another neighborhood's friend's birthday, and I was invited to party at his house. It also happened, that my Dad's birthday shared the same date.

Not having any money for a present, I decided that I would steal a P-40 airplane model-kit to give to my friend.

Well, I got caught by store security.

The look on my dad's face of disappointment, and the shame that I felt for that disappointment was the absolute harshest penalty that I could have faced that day.

I never shop-lifted again after that.

I've come to learn that these days they aren't even prosecuting adults for shoplifting in some municipalities. What kind of message does that send?

When I go down to a local convenience store they have "don't feed the animals" signs up. When I go inside and ask why they don't simply call the cops to trespass the riff-raff outside, they state "Most of the time, the cops won't even come down, unless there is a disturbance.. and then, even if they do haul them off, the door at the holding facility is revolving and they're usually released in a couple of hours.. only to come right back to lounging out front again. We've given up bothering with it, and find ourselves having to periodically deal with cleaning up all of the trash, and hosing down the sidewalk in front of the store."

I bet if they had tougher penalties for loitering and shoplifting , and enforced them , then some of these vagrants would be less of a problem.

So yes, we are in agreement. A law is unjust if it unfairly punishes the law-abiding, while failing to adequately punish the criminals that the law was supposedly intended for.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Gentlemen, just an opinion and not advice at all because right now you are free men and make your own choices and live with the consequences.

The net is becoming more dangerous for free speech every day. I have been reading Facebook is trying to get its members to turn in those they feel have radical racist or dangerous views.

Just saying what you post here never leaves the net and people will use it against you in the future.

If you want a future then watch your words.