Printable View
The United States Post Office: a government run "business" that consistently runs in the red--4 million in the hole this year. I frankly think they don't even try to break even because, you know, we just raise the debt ceiling when there is a cash-flow problem. Meanwhile, Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, etc., operate efficiently and seem to be doing extremely well financially.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Like with most things, sure, I often see opinions expressed by people who seem to be a bit kooky (I'm not pointing a finger at anyone in particular here). But at gun shows and things like that, yeah, I see people with or buying guns who make me nervous too. As with most things, it's the radicals and nutjobs who mess it up for everybody else. If the TEA Party had been a real and sincere movement for true fiscal responsibility, and not a cadre of wingnuts who are more concerned with extremist, right wing social policies or economically naive, silly people (led by Sarah Palin, et al), maybe I would have joined. If it was more like United We Stand (from the early 90's), I'm sure I would be a member - as that was the only political movement that I have ever been (and likely ever will be) a member of. But it's not. And my parents taught me very well to be careful of the company that I keep.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Not so much an equation, only to say that there are things that she doesn't like and there are things that I don't like. If her feelings about guns were that strong, I doubt she'd have gone shooting with our group (or spend time with someone like me). But I would be very surprised if she ever bought a firearm. She doesn't lose her mind around firearms. She's just not into them. She didn't grow up around them, as I did.Quote:
I find the attempt to equate 'liking guns' full stop with liking going shopping a little troubling, I must say. Liking shooting as a sport I can completely, utterly understand. But I would never like guns per se. At guns themselves I draw the line.
Cops here would burn down the city of Rome before they'd ever be disarmed. And what many police here want is even more firepower -which disturbs me (as I know many, many cops). My local police dept. even has full automatics now. :eek: Now what do these hayseeds need with MP5 submachine guns? They don't. But all this anti-terrorist B.S. (like an Islamist could even find this place!) made it possible for them to buy some new "toys" with taxpayer money. But to your point, there clearly is a very deep divide (culturally) between what most people accept there and what most people accept here regarding firearms ownership. Like it or not, that is the reality that we have to accept before we can move on and maybe (I hope) discuss our ideas on lessening firearms related violence here.Quote:
Most policemen in Britain remain unarmed. I feel decidedly uneasy when I see an armed policeman — to my mind it's a means of placating a certain section of public opinion in the face of a security threat that is, in percentage terms, unlikely directly to affect the vast majority of people. Certain events of recent years have shown that little trust can be placed in the ability of the police to use their firearms responsibly. Given that, how could I ever think that a 'have-a-go' member of the public, not subjected to extensive training, could be any more responsible with their firearm — especially given that, in the UK, it would be a matter of extreme paranoia to feel that possession of a firearm for protection is necessary or desirable?
I actually agree with you. But you understand that that ideology shows no sign of changing, don't you? So if we just want to talk about the ideology, then we will get nowhere on the issue of firearms related violence. If the only way that you see to lessen gun violence is to enact some sort of total ban (which many Americans would ignore, just as criminals do now), then we're back to square one, IMO. The people of this nation will not accept such a ban, anymore than the people of your nation would accept complete removal of the monarchy and the tearing down of Buckingham Palace and turning the land into a theme park.Quote:
Into which category falls, to my mind, the very basis of widespread US gun ownership.
To effectively address the specific problem of gun violence (or any problem, really), one has to just accept certain things, whether they are distasteful or not. I have to do that too. Much of the time I don't like it. But to be effective, I sometimes have to do that.
The difference between having a country policed by military authorities and civil ones is, I would suggest, quite substantial.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Once we accept how our legislation comes to be (and that it's not put forth by a dictator), then I believe the answer becomes more clear. Certainly our society is shaped by legislation. But more importantly, our legislation is shaped by the wants of our society. It is one thing to propose, pass and enact legislation which doesn't have total public support (we are greatly divided on many issues now). But it is quite another to think that something like a total ban on private firearms ownership could be railroaded through Congress, a President would sign it, the Supreme Court would allow it and the various law enforcement bodies would/could enforce it (assuming they'd even want to).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Please re-read what I wrote. I said "just words on a piece of paper". With the words that you're speaking about, there has been a will and a desire of the people (right or wrong) to hang onto those words over time - from even before the document was written. It's not as if there was no private firearms ownership when the Second Amendment was written and then all of a sudden there was.Quote:
Obviously the eventual outcome is a safer society; this does not happen with a prevalence of increasing numbers of firearms. If you think that placing words on more pieces of paper has fail all over it, yet are not willing to concede that words on a piece of paper created this weird blind devotion to firearms in the first place, then sadly yes, FAIL is written all over it.
As far as a total ban on private firearms ownership, my knowledge of U.S. history is not complete enough to know when that time has ever existed. Maybe it did, and I just don't know about it. I've studied Roman history much more than I have studied American history. Maybe after the shootings of John F. Kennedy, his brother, Bobby and Martin Luther King, Jr.? I don't know. But nothing has happened recently which has caused a majority or even a plurality of the people to push their elected representatives for any sort of total ban on firearms ownership here. Things have happened that would probably cause many to want a close review of gun laws, the court system and the mental health system here. The time for that has not passed - it's rolling along quite well, in fact.Quote:
I personally think that the time to act has passed. There might have been a solution but there is certainly no will to enact it. There are 51,438 retail gun shops, 129,817 licenced firearm dealers and with the the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry in the United States estimated at around $6.7 billion in combined yearly sales, I wager that it is impossible to put any substantive incentives or punitive measures in place that would make any difference.
Of course you continue to hear crickets chirping... that is the wish and desire of the people.
Folks, let me state the obvious here: if you could wave a magic wand and remove all firearms from every home and hand in the United States, you most certainly would have a safer environment overall. No question about it. You wouldn't eliminate crime or even murders and rapes. But with no guns (not even the police or the military), nobody could shoot anybody else - unless we revert to crossbows and bows & arrows. Not only would law abiding citizens, the police and the military not have firearms, but neither would criminals and mentally defective people. If that magic wand could accomplish that, then we could talk... and more Americans than you think would probably support such a (fantasy) measure. But there is no such thing as a magic wand. And just as I have to accept and deal with the reality of things like unions when I seek to restructure a manufacturing process in order to improve productivity and profitability (because that is my goal... the goal is not to bust the union or ban anything), then many of you also have to swallow hard and accept and deal with the reality of the gun culture here... if, if, if your goal in discussing this is to find realistic and practical ways to meaningfully lessen (as you'll never totally eliminate) firearms related violence.
But if the point of all of this is to just speak about and criticize the American gun culture, then that's something else altogether. That's just a dog chasing its tail for the fun of it. Just as with some unions, I may not like the reality that is there... but it is still there. And if I want to improve a current state and create a better future state, I have to work within the bounds of that reality. I have built a pretty decent reputation for being able to enact organizational change. But I'm not (truly) delusional. I know that I can't bend or change reality. I can't make a union disappear. I can't make hardened union members change their beliefs. I can shut their facility (if I'm allowed), but that is very different from my usual stated mission of improving productivity and profitability within a given, fixed facility. So to make some of the positions I see here work, you'd pretty much have to shut down this version of the U.S. and start over again somewhere else. Hey, maybe when we start colonizing the moon we can do this thing. :idea:
I have never seen any improvement in postal service when a private company is involved. But, again, we're going a long way off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
This is where people fall down, believing the argument is binary. Nobody is saying that a ban or restrictions on gun ownership would "put and end" to shootings, no more than banning drink-driving put an end to road deaths. Of course there will always be a subset of people who disobey any given law, and no sane person would suggest otherwise. However all the evidence shows that of all the westernised industrial nations it is that banning or severely restricting access to firearms reduces the death toll. I really don't understand what is so difficult to accept about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
And you keep responding. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Fed Ex changed the face of the postal service industry thirty odd years ago by offering to ship things faster. They were the only game in town. Then UPS and others quickly followed suit when they figured out the market was there. The USPS has likewise followed suit but it's a money pit--every year. My contention is the "improvement" is being fiscally responsible / profitable, and these other companies do extremely well. I've never seen a US Mail jet, but I see Fed Ex, UPS, DHL all the time. They have figured out how to make money.
Our government, on the other hand, could not care less about being solvent. That's because, drum roll please, they are using Other People's Money. When management has a financial stake in the company, money is spent responsibly. When it's OPP, there is no incentive to care.
The other issue is employee morale. I actually walk into a post office every now and then--what a soul-crushing place to be. Indeed, the phrase "going postal" was born from the phenomenon of disgruntled employees (or ex-employees shooting up the place). Never heard of that happening at these other companies.
Have you seen the USPS ONLY benefits their employees get? It repulses me every time I look at my benefit costs and see Postal/non-postal rates for health benefits. I have to contribute $230 a month more than a postal worker for the same exact health benefit plan. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
Roads was given as an example. When my Son is old enough to drive (but still in education) he will benefit from driving on roads, built with tax money, that he has yet to contribute to. For him then, it is free. (assuning he uses my car..... etc ;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
as a minor, his contribution is your responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
This is the mentality that makes countries like Greece go bankrupt--pension and benefits policies that do not make fiscal sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
We have a few situations here that
The same could be said for the United Auto Workers--each car that's driven off the lot must charge $5K just to cover pensions. I heard that stat 15 years ago--it's perhaps significantly more now. Oh yeah, and three years ago the US taxpayers had to bail them out of their mess.
I heard this one a while back: a lifeguard in California can get a $105K pension--another state that where labor makes the rules.
The thing is that, as has been demonstrated, there actually are no practical solutions. You can't ban anything, you can't forcibly take firearms off the populace and any incentivised scheme like a gun buyback would be like trying to remove the ocean by using a single bucket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
There are no realistic and practical ways to meaningfully lessen firearms related violence in the United States other than natural variation.
Then there's the wee problem of getting 50 states to agree to anything, which is a herculean task at the best of times.
So basically, we(USA) are screwed.
But me being the eternal optimist will disqualify my previous statement by firmly believing that we will eventually move ahead with some changes that will get us closer to respecting the law abiding gun owners and also respecting the sanity of a sane society where the "us" will take precedent over the "I" and we will not be forced to all carry a hand gun (or a machete in my case) - oh but wait . . . . we still have to go over this "cliff" of ours and the debt ceiling and the fact that banks are not lending any money to us normal citizens . . . . but sorry, I digress . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
And to continue my rant, the fact that this thread continues and some (in my always honest opinion) forum members are contributing to it with an intelligent and even a caring manner, it shows that this is a very important topic that not only affects the citizens of the USA but also the citizens of our planet.
It can be looked at as an opportunity:Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
1) Sales of firearms goes up, plus increased demand causes prices to increase, making that industry financially healthier.
2) More training classes for firearms owners, which makes gun owners more knowledgable . . . and the gun industry has another source of income.
3) Registration of firearms is another source of revenue . . . for the states.
4) Applications for conceal-carry permits go up=more revenue for the states.
5) Mental healthcare fields have a higher demand for qualified graduates (along with de-stigamtizing mental health issues) to get ill people the help / support they need
6) Security companies may have to hire more personnel to keep up with the demand.
7) The police forces may need to recruit more due to higher demand.
I'm reminded of a satire about a BBC newsreader's desire for the broadcasting of more 'good news':Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
'It's boom time for glaziers, as the IRA bombs the Baltic Exchange.'
'Good news for funeral directors, as 12 people are murdered by dangerous mental patients released under the government's Care in the Community scheme.'
You may as well argue that numbers of road deaths be increased in order to justify expansion of the emergency services, or encourage al-Qaida repeatedly to attack the USA in order to boost employment in the anti-terrorism sector.
Yes, I love me some satire (in fact, I have designed and taught courses on that genre) and it became painfully obvious to me as I was typing that the inevitable "coffin industry spike" comment would be leveled. But I'm being sincere.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The only reason al-Qaida is a threat is because we willy nilly allow anyone to come to our country (we don't even deport many, and give them heathcare and free public education--all without any federal tax liability). But I digress.
It's too bad we didn't have security measures in place the day they hijacked 4 of our commercial planes and flew them either into a building or into the ground. What did we do afterward? Put an armed, undercover agent on board all flight and (so far) there has been no such terrorist threat.
In that case, I find your comments extremely depressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
The only reason? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
There may be other reasons, you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
I'm calling for gun registration and gun education. That's depressing?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
College graduates have suffered because they have been unable to find work, and I noted the increase in demand for healthcare professionals to deal with mentally ill people. That's depressing?
I noted the increase in demand for security and law enforcement professionals--in an economy that just recently dipped under 8% unemployment and is recovering from the biggest recession since the 70s. That's depressing?
I find it depressing because all of your ideas for job generation are based on what I consider to be almost wholly negative phenomena, namely gun ownership and feelings of insecurity.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
So far we have 44 pages to suggest that the US has some "negative phenomenon" that needs fixing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
But I prefer to look at it as "enhanced homeland security" and "healthcare for the mentally ill." :p :
I'm pretty sure that we were pulled out of a catastrophic depression in the 1930s in large part due to World War II.
The difference being of course that in 1941 the American people pulled together in order to defeat a common enemy. Not only will that not be the case here but a great deal of people explicitly do not want to and will fight in the other direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
Sure, and it took many months for the US government (and its people) to convince itself to enter the war. We were pretty much running out of options once France got stomped on by the Nazis. Still, it took the Japanese attack to finally make us declare war in the Pacific, and we only declared war on Germany after they declared war against us. We were, I believe, the last powerful nation to enter the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
As for the opposition to gun control, I think the American public will need to see what the final bill will entail. Right now cooler heads are not prevailing and we have pure emotion and paranoia spilling over, fueled, of course, by our melodramatic media. In addition, this issue is still generating a great deal of information and the talking heads have been proffering their solutions too quickly, which the unthinking masses are all too happy to repeat.
What's the current bill?Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
Shootings Costing U.S. $174 Billion Show Burden of Gun Violence - Bloomberg
The cost of U.S. gun violence in work lost, medical care, insurance, criminal-justice expenses and pain and suffering amounted to as much as $174 billion in 2010, according to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Maryland.
...
Dividing the $174 billion total by the number of guns in the U.S. -- 270 million as reported by the United Nations’ International Small Arms Survey -- the institute calculated the cost to society of each civilian-owned firearm in the U.S. at more than $644.
- Bloomberg, Dec 21, 2012
I don't know how exactly you'd arrive at a cost of keeping the status quo but at least 10,000 people killed per year and $174bn seems statistically insignificant really, it's a little more than 0.1% of GDP. Perhaps it's just best that people die needlessly. After all, Americans have pretty well much decided that their increased health care costs are worth it for precisely zero net benefit.
To the contrary, nothing (that I'm aware of) has been demonstrated, regarding the practicality of any solutions. What practical solutions have we even seen thus far? Foolish, naive attempts, like the (misnamed) Assault Weapons Ban of the mid 90's, which mostly dealt with the cosmetic appearance of firearms, were sure to fail and I knew that as soon as the googly-eyes in Congress passed that bit of Hopium filled silliness. Seriously, I'm truly not aware of any well though out, data based legislation which has passed, or even been proposed, which has dealt specifically with any of the root causes of firearms related violence in the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
There is also no requirement for the 50 states to agree to anything (en masse). Even with an amendment to the Constitution, it is not necessary for the 50 states to agree to it. Now, is getting anything through Congress easy right now? No, clearly it is not. Within the next three months, I may end up deeply regretting my (unannounced) decision to leave my current employer and join a new company. If we are plunged into a Congress-created recession, then I could very well be out of a job - and so will a LOT of other Americans. So even slow pitches are hard for these overpaid, half-witted crooks to hit. But under what (used to be) normal circumstances, even controversial bills (after being tweaked somewhat) could make it through Congress. It has happened many, many times. But to be practical, it has to be effective and able to be clearly explained, given the contentious nature of this topic in the U.S.
No one else wants to give it a shot, so I will go first. I'm going to base my hypothesis and proposals on the data, which confirms that those who have been previously convicted of violent crimes, and are already prohibited from owning or possessing firearms, contribute disproportionately to firearms related violence in the United States, which includes murder, attempted murder, malicious wounding, forcible rape and armed robbery. One data source (which I cannot yet find adequate validation for the study the claim is pulled from) states that 90% of the murders committed in the United States for 2005 were committed by people with a prior criminal conviction. Another states that "During the years 2001-2005, a total of 2816 murders were logged for the City of Chicago. Also during those 5 years, 2231 murder offenders were apprehended. Of those 2231 offenders, 93% had prior arrest histories. The high was in 2001, when 99% of murderers had rap sheets." So whatever the correct data is, nationally or from locality to locality, it seems that it is going to confirm that this subgroup ("previously convicted offenders"), within the total population ("people living in the United States... citizens or not"), should comprise almost the entire focus of my "proposals for reform" (for practical, logical and also political reasons). I'm also going to throw in something about mental health, but I haven't thought enough about what the most effective reforms should be for that broken system... it's just not something I know that much about. But some of these offenders are surely people with various mental conditions - I just don't know how many or what to do about them.
So I'm just going to throw out some rough cut concepts and ideas - some of which probably won't be liked very much by the pro-gun people here. Sorry folks, I have my beliefs but I am not an ideologue in most cases. I just want to see if this will get anything constructive going... or if people will just go back to arguing the who, why and whats of the Second Amendment and what George Washington had for breakfast on October 21, 1779. Add to it, subtract from it, modify it as you see fit... whatever you choose to do, but be constructive! And since almost nobody else has had much to throw in the pot on the topic of firearms violence reduction, just coming up with a cute/valueless criticism, without a corresponding contribution, may provoke a very sharp & pointed response from me. Merry Christmas! :wave:
The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute:
1) Extended/longer term, "extraordinary" surveillance for any and all persons convicted of a violent felony or a crime which resulted in involuntary confinement to a mental institution for more than 90 days (arbitrary number there). As they are now "prohibited persons", with respect to the firearms laws, any evidence that they have violated this law may subject them to a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.
2) Gun show reforms which would prevent the sale of firearms in public places or those places open to the public by those without an FFL, unless a mandatory FBI background check has been passed by the purchaser.
3) A Strawman law which mandates that any person who purchases a firearm, and within 12 months desires to sell it to a party who does not possess an FFL, must use the (reformed) FBI Background Check system prior to the sale, to ensure the qualification of said person to purchase or possess a firearm. Any person found to be purchasing one or more firearms for immediate sale across state lines to prohibited persons or organizations may be found guilty of a Federal crime and sentenced to a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.
4) Court or judicially confirmed (not convicted) members of any and all recognized, organized criminal groups (street gangs, motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, ethnic gangs, RICO violators, etc.) may be seen and dealt with as domestic terrorists - and all of the fun things that come with such a designation. As well, such individuals immediately become "prohibited persons" under the Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute.
5) The FBI Background Check System will be reformed so that private sellers of firearms will have ready access to the system. And any prohibited individual who attempts to purchase a firearm must have his identity reported to the appropriate police agency within 24 hours. All states will be required to report any and all court enforced mental health submissions/confinements exceeding 90(?) days to the FBI database. Failure to do so may result in the AG of said state being taken into Federal custody by U.S. Marshals and held for contempt before a Federal judge. Conviction may result in a term (ready??? wait for it!) not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.
6) Upon purchasing a new or used firearm from any source that has to or elects to use the background check system, the identity of the purchaser will remain in an FBI database and a chain of ownership will be established for as long as that firearm exists. Should one, who does not currently have an FFL, elect not to use the system and then sell to suspicious purchasers... much like a fully assumable VA mortgage, you can transfer a firearm to whomever you like. But if the transfer is done without a background check, whatever trouble that weapon causes is all on you - because you are the last recorded owner of the house... I mean gun! BTW: *Any release of a name and/or address in this database to any entity outside of the courts or law enforcement shall be punishable by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. Breaching said database would carry the same penalties.*
7) Any individual, financial institution, financier or business entity convicted of being engaged in or enabling the smuggling of two or more firearms into or out of the United States (including the laundering of money from said transactions) will have 50% of all assets (beneficial and owned directly) seized by the United States government or be subject to a fine equaling 50% of current net assets payable to the United States government. Upon the date of said charge, all liquid assets shall be frozen and unavailable for use, for continuing business or legal purposes. Any individual and/or the corporate officers of a business entity tried and convicted of this crime may punished by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. 100% of these seizure and fine proceeds shall be segregated from general government operating funds and be used solely for violent crime and gang interdiction, police staffing, database operation and victim restitution.
8) Mental health reforms to include (but not limited to) the expansion of psychiatric studies and care at all publicly funded hospitals... especially for veterans. **Hopefully this is the one that someone, with a deeper knowledge than I have, will spend some time on and add something of real value.**
9) Any person deemed to be a "prohibited person" under my reforms, who is found in possession of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm, whether committing some other crime or not, shall be subject to a prison term of... what is it? I know that you know it by now!
Is that all? No. Is that everything? No. Is it a start? I think so... a little bit... even those items that might/would be challenged to the Supreme Court or by civil liberties groups... or my NRA bros. :p
The man got balls!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I've made a couple of changes / additions to your statute. Take a look and see if you agree or not.
Quote:
The Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute
Quote:
:
1) Extended/longer term, "extraordinary" surveillance for any and all persons convicted of a violent felony or a crime which resulted in involuntary confinement to a mental institution for more than 90 days (arbitrary number there). As they are now "prohibited persons", with respect to the firearms laws, any evidence that they have violated this law may subject them to a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.
2) Gun show reforms which would prevent the sale of firearms in public places or those places open to the public by those without an FFL, unless a mandatory FBI background check has been passed by the purchaser.
3) A Strawman law which mandates that any person who purchases a firearm, and within 12 months desires(delete) to sell or give it to a party who does not possess an FFL, must use the (reformed) FBI Background Check system prior to the sale, to ensure the qualification of said person to purchase or possess a firearm. Any person found to be purchasing one or more firearms for immediate sale(delete) transfer across state lines to prohibited persons or organizations may be found guilty of a Federal crime and sentenced to a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.
4) Court or judicially confirmed (not convicted) members of any and all recognized, organized criminal groups (street gangs, motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, ethnic gangs, RICO violators, etc.) may be seen and dealt with as domestic terrorists - and all of the fun things that come with such a designation. As well, such individuals immediately become "prohibited persons" under the Jag_Warrior Firearms Reforms Statute.
5) The FBI Background Check System will be reformed so that private sellers of firearms will have ready access to the system. And any prohibited individual who attempts to purchase a firearm must have his identity reported to the appropriate police agency within 24 hours. All states will be required to report any and all court enforced mental health submissions/confinements exceeding 90(?) days to the FBI database. Failure to do so may result in the AG of said state being taken into Federal custody by U.S. Marshals and held for contempt before a Federal judge. Conviction may result in a term (ready??? wait for it!) not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison.
6) Upon purchasing a new or used firearm from any source that has to or elects to use the background check system, the identity of the purchaser will remain in an FBI database and a chain of ownership will be established for as long as that firearm exists. Should one, who does not currently have an FFL, elect not to use the system and then sell to suspicious purchasers... much like a fully assumable VA mortgage, you can transfer a firearm to whomever you like. But if the transfer is done without a background check, whatever trouble that weapon causes is all on you - because you are the last recorded owner of the house... I mean gun! BTW: *Any release of a name and/or address in this database to any entity outside of the courts or law enforcement shall be punishable by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. Breaching said database would carry the same penalties.*
7) Any individual, financial institution, financier or business entity convicted of being engaged in or enabling the smuggling of two or more firearms into or out of the United States (including the laundering of money from said transactions) will have 50% of all assets (beneficial and owned directly) seized by the United States government or be subject to a fine equaling 50% of current net assets payable to the United States government. Upon the date of said charge, all liquid assets shall be frozen and unavailable for use, for continuing business or legal purposes. Any individual and/or the corporate officers of a business entity tried and convicted of this crime may punished by a prison term not to exceed 20 years but not less than 10 years in prison. 100% of these seizure and fine proceeds shall be segregated from general government operating funds and be used solely for violent crime and gang interdiction, police staffing, database operation and victim restitution.
8) Mental health reforms to include (but not limited to) the expansion of psychiatric studies and care at all publicly funded hospitals... especially for veterans. **Hopefully this is the one that someone, with a deeper knowledge than I have, will spend some time on and add something of real value.**
9) Any person deemed to be a "prohibited person" under my reforms, who is found in possession of a firearm or ammunition for a firearm, whether committing some other crime or not, shall be subject to a prison term of... what is it? I know that you know it by now!
10) Any owner of a legally registered firearm who loses the firearm or has the firearm stolen must report the loss within 24 hours of discovering the loss. Failure to do so will result in a $5,000 fine.
11) Any person convicted of using a firearm in the commission of these felonies - robbery, rape, kidnapping or murder (other than self defense) - shall be subject to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Again. In a police state like yours the only difference is in the color of the uniform and in its name.
And then you people wonder why we look at you euro-types with contempt.
Piers Morgan: Deport me? If America won't change its crazy gun laws I may deport myself | Mail Online
Does this arrogant douche actually think we would even bat an eyelash if he left? Jeez. I know many who would pay for his plane ticket.....including the twits at CNN who hired that self-absorbed jerk.
Bloomberg, eh? Well, then. I guess the case is closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Jag and Starter--well done. I'm all for responsible gun ownership and common sense measures. Inasmuch as I believe in the Bill of Rights, lawbreakers should lose theirs.
For once we're in agreement, over your description of Morgan at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I fail to understand his popularity over there. You guys love your armed forces, soldiers are worshipped as heroes, but this man deliberately put British and Allied soldiers at risk by sanctioning a front page consisting of a faked photograph of actors in uniform appearing to urinate on Iraqis [link]. Piers Morgan is a worm, and you're more than welcome to him. We don't want him back. Please do not make the mistake of thinking he is in any way representative of Brits or Europeans as a whole.
But he's right on gun control...
Don't let the door hit ya Piers.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I'm in. You take paypal?
I really have no problem agreeing with any of that. I have no problems with all transactions being registered or my background being checked. I do it already any time I buy a firearm through a dealer or a retailer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
http://www.mdgunsafety.com/mspfaq.htm
In Maryland, we aren't too far from most of those laws as it is. They just need to be ENFORCED. I have no problem with the gun show loopholes being closed. There is no reason a government official couldn't be present at gun shows to run the background checks through the current system for private party sales. FFL's should already be running the purchases, even on long arms. Every shotgun or rifle I've ever purchased was run through the system. Again, I have no problem with that. I have run all of my private sales/transfers through an FFL or the state police anyway. Yeah, it can be a hassle, but law abiding folks shouldn' have a problem with it, and someone that does, well, I don't need or want to sell them any firearms I am linked to. I don't agree with current statutes that sometimes allow convicted violent offenders to regain their rights to ownership, even for hunting. They did it once, they will do it again.
#4 can be problematic but needs to be better defined anyway. I know a person that holds the office of treasurer in a fraternal organization that was drug into a RICO case because an associate member of the club was arrested for a launtry list of crimes. The guy that was arrested is clearly a POS, but also owns a fairly successful and legitimate food distribution company. He is a very active member of the club, but he hasa few vices people didn't know about. The treasurer was charged with money laundering because he wrote a series of checks to reimburse the guy for food he provided for the organizations events. The feds are asserting the treasurer should have knowledge as a member of the same fraternal organization that the guy was involved in trug trafficking and prostitution (guy likes coke whores apparently).
*wow, I didn't realize we have a character limit. Had to snip the quote just to post my reply.
Still not one bit of that would satisfy gun opponenents who simply want all firearms confiscated.
This is the only time Morgan, a fool of the second order (I would say 'first', but there are one or two others I'd rank in front of him) and congenital liar, has ever been right.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Are you in favour of his deportation?
Splendid point! Yes, I'm a fascist and in favour of a police state. Bless you, Tony, for pointing out points of view I hadn't even realised I had.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Happy New Year!
'Enhanced homeland security', in my eyes = means of exerting further control over the population by means of preying on paranoia regarding terrorism. Certainly it should be opposed by anyone truly in favour of freedom, as opposed to the trite notion of it we see from some here, who just think that spouting the word makes them its only true defender.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
So you're not in favour of free speech?Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Very much so! Great ideas. :up: That's how these things get done (right); with people who are pushing for the same goal (increasing public safety and lessening firearms related violence) making contributions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
As much as I used to be for open gun shows, I've just witnessed too much funny business at the past several shows I've attended to keep that position (the most recent being the weekend before Christmas).Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
I understand your point about item #4. Actually, several of those concepts would need to be cleaned up and better written. I mean, under those reforms, Brian Moynihan of Bank of America and Stuart Gulliver of HSBC might find themselves in bracelets for allowing money laundering that benefited drug cartels and gun smuggling operations. In addition to my draconian fines, there would also be some heavy jail time for those who *should* have known or who didn't put measures in place to prevent these crimes. One thing I have learned about big business: the top dogs will never allow any sort of (known) funny business if there is a real possibility that it might affect their life and liberty. Isn't it funny that banks were able to trace small denomination money orders ($100 and less) that wound up going to Al Qaeda, but they seem completely oblivious to the hundreds of billions that flow through accounts benefiting drug cartels? But yeah, I understand your concern about getting small, (mostly) innocent fish in the net. I'd hate for that to happen (and I'm not judging your buddy), but another tactic that people in business often rely on when something illegal/improper happens is "plausible deniability". I just wanted to get some ideas out there as quickly as I could.
A little later, I'll try to further verify the data on what percentage of murders is committed by people previously charged and/or convicted of a violent crime or maybe any felony. From several sources, it seems that they do indeed represent a disproportionate contribution to the issue of firearms related violence in the United States. And it makes me very sad that those who talk about this issue as strictly one which involves "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines (not just the people here) will not engage in a discussion on how to address the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of those who are already known to be violent or insane.
BTW, I am actually surprised that the gun owners here were largely OK with several of those conceptual ideas. Starter even added to them. I think he's a secret Soros/Bloomberg fan. We better keep an eye on him from now on! :D
Great contributions, guys! I hope that we now get some comments, modifications and/or additions from our European members.
No In favor of a douchebag of the first order willfully removing himself from our shores and our airwaves. My distaste for him has zero to do with his statements on gun control. The three days during hurricane Sandy that I was without local news and was forced to listen to him and Anderson Cooper on CNN to have an idea of where the storm was going was dreadful.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell