This isn’t a “team scenario”, it’s a “one side is composed of rabid amoral fanatics” scenario. The Republicans will do their best to see that anything desired by the Democrats fails, regardless of the cost to the country, whether or not it makes sense, or whether or not they supported it before the Democrats decided they agreed. The Republicans are not willing to be bipartisan, and they define “compromise” as “give us everything we want, plus extra”.
Gawdamighty, Damuri, you’re still clinging to this notion that the failure of a highly-popular bill, which even you claim your side agreed with, was the fault of those who *supported *it, not of those who opposed it. I would have hoped that by now you’d have come to realize how nonsensical and cognitively-dissonant a position that is. You’re still actually claiming that reducing the deaths of children is less important to you than some manufactured butthurt over something Feinstein may have said. Your failure to get anyone on the anti-murder side to accept such a lame excuse is not *their *fault.
Or are you simply unwilling to state what is obvious to the rest of us, that there is nothing, nothing at all, in the real world that you are willing to accept if it in any way infringes on your claimed right to practice a fetish. Nothing else is as important, only *that *truly matters to you. That’s what the evidence shows, isn’t it?
I think it’s really a semantic point. If this is weakening gun laws or not. I don’t think there is a law that the inventory needed to be audited, etc, so opposing something that’s not already a law by definition can’t be weakening a law. Undermining the effort, maybe. Weakening a law, no.
This is not to say that I disagree with inventorying firearms. I think it’s good business and keeping track of inventory seems perfectly reasonable, given any other cost/benefit constraints.
You seem to use those words whenever you don’t have an argument. I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean. Either that or you are incapable understanding any level of complexity in an issue.
Tell me again how an AWB would have prevented Newtown? And of course the effect of proposing the AWB is at least partly the fault of the people that proposed it.
Obvious to the rest of us? I don’t think it obvious to anyone but you and your fellow travellers. I’ve proposed gun regulations that would work MUCH better than an AWB (I think “the rest of us” pretty much agree on that), you are stuck defending a retarded AWB and blaming the fallout of pushing for that retarded AWB on others.
IIRC, there was no law on the subject at all, the ATF was conducting inventory audits and then the congress forbade them from doing so. The ATF was engaging in enforcement that was turning up horrible gaps in the record keeping of some gun shops and congress intervened to prevent the ATF from finding more of those horrible gaps.
So, now that you know how worked up people like me get over attempts to ban guns and stupid ill conceived gun regulations, maybe next time your side will take that into account before you propose gun bans or pass stupid ill conceived gun regulations. I don’t think your side will ever learn its lesson but hopefully one day, a Republican will get into office and make a grand bargain for gun control that will be designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Maybe we can get rid of some of the less effective laws and replace them with more effective laws. Maybe we can start arresting people that lie on their background check form or illegally possess a gun.
Despite your side’s insistence that the average Joe gun owner is a menace to society as a premise for disarming everyone, the statistics show that it is largely criminals and others who are not allowed to own a gun to begin with that are responsible for the great majority of the gun violence in our society. Your side keeps pointing to these remote events (like some kid shooting their baby sister) to prove that we need to disarm everyone but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of gun violence comes from a small subgroup of the population a subgroup that is already not allowed to possess guns.
So rather than focusing on my guns or the guns of other law abiding gun owners, why not focus on those people that we KNOW are the source of most gun violence? Why not follow up on gun application where felons fail to disclose that they are felons? If you can save even one life wouldn’t it be worth it?:rolleyes:
When asked why they don’t follow up on people who are not allowed to own guns but lie on applications when they try to purchase a gun the police chief of Milwaukee blew off the question as a waste of resources. How the FUCK is that a waste of resources? Why bother having a 10 year penalty for lying on your gun application if you aren’t going to enforce it?
The evidence shows that you’ll get “worked up” over, and therefore oppose, any gun measure at all. Your attempts to blame the people you insist on seeing as the enemy for your *own *emotions are the same as those of toddlers saying “Now look what you made me do!”. How about you try *not *getting worked up instead and see what that gets you?
That’s really it, huh? You claim to want to enact those things, but not under a Democratic President? That’s what matters more to you?
How about supporting the background-check bill, then? You *opposed *it. You and your side *opposed *it, you succeeded in thwarting it temporarily, you’re gloating over it, and you are casting responsibility for that on Feinstein of all people rather than your own damn selves. Don’t waste keystrokes with that sort of folderol, your own actions show what you really believe is important, and it isn’t what you claim.
A Republican couldn’t get nominated, let alone elected on that platform, and if said Republican managed to keep such intentions secret and got elected, any attempt by said Republican president to implement those plans would be met by an NRA-backed shitstorm that would be a wonder to behold.
How much does it cost to try one of these cases? What’s the conviction rate, and would that rate extrapolate to all cases?
I’m imagining the state trying to convince a jury that the person lied, and the person trying to convince a jury that it was an honest misunderstanding. It seems like a tough sell, especially if a lot of the rejections are for things like Bone linked to. Furthermore, the person was already denied the gun, so enforcing those harsh sentences wouldn’t even prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.
I can see where it might be a waste of resources. The penalties may be harsh for the .01% of cases that they do find a good reason to prosecute.
[quote=“ElvisL1ves, post:46, topic:658811”]
The evidence shows that you’ll get “worked up” over, and therefore oppose, any gun measure at all.
Why do you keep ignoring that I support licensing and registration? In fact over 70% of NRA members support background checks. They just don’t trust the gun grabbers to stop there after they make gun grabbing the centerpeice of their legislative agenda on guns until theyr ealize they have overplayed their hand.
So far its punished the gun grabbers for trying to grab guns by not only defeating the AWB but even defeating very mild gun control. Why would we stop, our modus operandiseems to be working pretty well.
You guys on the other hand keep getting your asses ahnded to you. Why dont YOU try something new, maybe you’ll get somewhere.
I voted for obama 3 times. I would vote for him again. but right now, there is no way that a Democrat in the white house isn’t going to ignite the instant and vocal opposition of gun owners. The Democrats have succeeded in making gun control a partisan issue, congratulations on losing a bunch of Democratic voters in swing states.
I didn’t oppose it. I don’t even think I’m gloating over it, I am saying “I told you so” and rubbing your nose in it in the hopes that you learn your lesson. Whether or not you learn any lessons from that experience, well, thats up to you. I hope your side does but it doesn’t seem like you think you could have done anything different to achieve a better result.
Machine gun ban happened under Reagan.
Gun free school zones happened under Bush sr.
Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill although he did it after he left office.
I agree taht the Republican party isn’t as reasonable as it used to be but right now a Democrat can’t get much of anything done.
Very little cost and high conviction rate, I assume. You have physcial evidence in the form of video tapes and a signed application by the felon.
And yet people in the justice department who actually know the law disagree.
One person in the Justice department speaking anonymously disagrees. I don’t know if its true or not but you can get up to 5 years for lying on a form 4473. I don’t see why a judge wouldn’t throw the book at a felon that lied.
..,with one person speaking anonymously on a message board.
No matter what, Damuri, you’re going to stick with “*You *made us do it! It’s *your *fault!” as your excuse for your irresponsible conduct, aren’t you? No matter how loud the laughter gets?
Oh well, your choice. Your consequences, too, like it or not.
The judge isn’t the problem, it’s the jury.
Don’t like my anonymous source? How about a 2004 Justice Dept. IG report.
My favorite part is that even though the ATF only forwards a small number of cases to the justice department, “the review found that the ATF still forwarded too many cases that lacked prosecutorial merit.”
Sounds like these things are hard to prosecute, doesn’t it?
Your cite largely supports the notion of prosecuting people who “lie and try” I don’t really understand this resistance to enforcing the gun laws. After spending all that energy in the 1980’s to get these laws passed, now you don’t even want to bother enforcing them? Why spend so much time and trouble to get them passed? Are you interested in reducing gun violence or just proving you can pass gun control laws.
You didn’t MAKE the NRA stop you, you gave them the power to stop you. Maybe next time your side won’t be so retarded but judging from the reactions on this board from the gun grabbers, it seems like you don’t think there is a lesson to be learned.
Then why not just fucking repeal the law?
Plenty of gun control groups seem to support more prosecution but once the NRA says its a good idea, all of a sudden you guys think its a horrible idea. Its like you guys are Republicans and the NRA is Obama.
Judges see people, in their courtrooms, lying under oath every day. They are used to considering the evidence and ruling in contradiction to sworn testimony. Coming back and jailing the witnesses for the losing side? That they aren’t used to.
People lie a lot. Always have. Always will.
Where did I say it’s a horrible idea?
You said that enforcing the law would be easy. I provided cites from people who know a thing or two about enforcing laws stating that it’s actually a very difficult law to enforce.
That doesn’t mean we should repeal the law, or we should throw our collective hands in the air and never enforce it. It just means that enforcing this specific law takes a lot of resources and, by itself, isn’t going to solve the problem of gun violence.
I know it’s been awhile since this thread was active, but before you respond you could at least read back through and pick up the context again.
Sorry I missed this.
Perjury is hard to prove except when you have a signed written statement that you knew or should have known to be false. Out of the tens of thousands of felons who “lie and try” to buy a gun, we prosecute a pathetically small number.
Out of the 80,000 people who fail background checks, fewer than 100 are charged with a crime. Fewer than half of those are prosecuted.
Considering all we know about how much more likely these people are to commit crimes within a short period of trying to buy a gun, it seems like we are abandoningn low hanging fruit to chase ridiculous shit like an AWB.
I also think there is a broken windows effect. When you have 80,000 failed attempts to buy a gun and only a small handful of people get prosecuted, its really easy to start thinking that there are no cops on the beat or at least that you can get away with stuff.
Of course its not going to resolve the problem by itself but after months of the “if we can save even one life…” argument, ignoring this avenue for reducing gun violence makes people seem like they are more interested in looking like they are doing something to stop gun violence than actually stopping gun violence. Especially when you see people pushing for an AWB.
If you can’t or won’t enforce the laws we already have then stop pushing for more laws that you won’t be enforcing because at that point you are basdically counting on voluntary complaince from a population that is highly unlikely to break the alw in the first place.