Mass shooting in California

[AMDG]

snipped to portion addressed. Longer post above.

But here's the thing...say that you used that weapon in a crime, and the police found it, and did a trace, and it was traced back to the guy you bought it from...How responsible is he for the crime? I think he should be liable in some way, depending on the severity of the crime...

I suspect your answer might be on any of the gun restriction laws ALREADY on the books:

"•18 U.S.C. 922(g): A felon, fugitive, or drug user may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for being in possession of a firearm or ammunition. In other words, the firearms that liberals want to ban are already banned for criminals, fugitives, and drug users. What is needed is better enforcement of this existing law—not new laws that will not be enforced. This reinforces a point often made by those of us who support the Second Amendment: gun laws will take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
•18 U.S.C. 922(j): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing a stolen firearm. Since criminals often use stolen firearms in committing the violent crimes liberals are constantly wringing their hands about, simply enforcing this law would cut down on gun violence. This being the case, one can only wonder who liberals are really aiming at with their campaign for new gun-control laws. The answer should be obvious: law-abiding citizens.
•18 U.S.C. 924(b): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for shipping, transporting, or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.
•18 U.S.C. 924(a): An individual may be sentenced to 5 to 30 years in prison for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a violent federal crime or in the act of drug trafficking.
•18 U.S.C. 924(j): An individual may be sentenced to death for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a violent crime or in the act of drug trafficking.
•18 U.S.C. 924(g): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for interstate travel to acquire or effect the transfer of a firearm for the purpose of committing a crime.

Those summarized above are just a sampling of the gun-control laws that are already on the books and are readily available to law enforcement personnel and prosecutors. These laws cover every aspect of acquiring, possessing, transporting, and illegally using firearms. "


Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: Refuting the Lies of Gun-Control Liberals - Patriot UpdatePatriot Update

Think your problem is WHY the laws are not being applied--NOT "let's make MORE laws that won't be applied and won't do anything to solve the problem, but WILL make me feel good".

 

[Root of Jesse]

snipped to portion addressed. Longer post above.



I suspect your answer might be on any of the gun restriction laws ALREADY on the books:

"•18 U.S.C. 922(g): A felon, fugitive, or drug user may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for being in possession of a firearm or ammunition. In other words, the firearms that liberals want to ban are already banned for criminals, fugitives, and drug users. What is needed is better enforcement of this existing law—not new laws that will not be enforced. This reinforces a point often made by those of us who support the Second Amendment: gun laws will take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens but will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
•18 U.S.C. 922(j): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing a stolen firearm. Since criminals often use stolen firearms in committing the violent crimes liberals are constantly wringing their hands about, simply enforcing this law would cut down on gun violence. This being the case, one can only wonder who liberals are really aiming at with their campaign for new gun-control laws. The answer should be obvious: law-abiding citizens.
•18 U.S.C. 924(b): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for shipping, transporting, or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.
•18 U.S.C. 924(a): An individual may be sentenced to 5 to 30 years in prison for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a violent federal crime or in the act of drug trafficking.
•18 U.S.C. 924(j): An individual may be sentenced to death for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a violent crime or in the act of drug trafficking.
•18 U.S.C. 924(g): An individual may be sentenced to 10 years in prison for interstate travel to acquire or effect the transfer of a firearm for the purpose of committing a crime.

Those summarized above are just a sampling of the gun-control laws that are already on the books and are readily available to law enforcement personnel and prosecutors. These laws cover every aspect of acquiring, possessing, transporting, and illegally using firearms. "


Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: Refuting the Lies of Gun-Control Liberals - Patriot UpdatePatriot Update

Think your problem is WHY the laws are not being applied--NOT "let's make MORE laws that won't be applied and won't do anything to solve the problem, but WILL make me feel good".

Exactly, AMDG. I want them to put the current laws into place before they try to put more laws into place to confuse the issue further, as MikeG so perfectly illustrated. The fact that there are loopholes doesn't mean we need more laws.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The problem is directly related to the destruction of the family and extended family. Its a calculated destruction by the evil one satin. Remember him? He is not a fairies' tale. The nanny state, Tv, movie stars, Oprah ,Dr Pill. cant raise children. these past 50 years is proof. Only One man and one woman married along with the help of Grand Parents, aunts and uncles. cousins ect. Gods way.

Well said, brother.

 

[MikeK]

I can buy lots of things on the internet, or through the internet, and not pay sales tax. That doesn't mean it's legal.

A lot of law depends on self-policing. The issue is not, really, the law-abiding citizen. I suspect, though I don't know, and I could ask, but couldn't verify, that you registered the weapon you bought? But here's the thing...say that you used that weapon in a crime, and the police found it, and did a trace, and it was traced back to the guy you bought it from...How responsible is he for the crime? I think he should be liable in some way, depending on the severity of the crime...

Of course I didn't register it. There is no Federal law requiring gun registration and my State has no gun registration. There is no registration at the original point of sale either. A gun can be traced to the last licensed dealer that sold it, that's it. The Church is advocating for background checks on all sales (not just those from licensed dealers) and a registration system so that sales can be tracked. None of the feel-good laws that AMDG posted address the problems that I and our Bishops are speaking to.

Some cities and even States have experimented with registration, but it simply doesn't work unless you require it across the board.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Of course I didn't register it. There is no Federal law requiring gun registration and my State has no gun registration. There is no registration at the original point of sale either. A gun can be traced to the last licensed dealer that sold it, that's it. The Church is advocating for background checks on all sales (not just those from licensed dealers) and a registration system so that sales can be tracked. None of the feel-good laws that AMDG posted address the problems that I and our Bishops are speaking to.

Some cities and even States have experimented with registration, but it simply doesn't work unless you require it across the board.

If there's no teeth in it, it doesn't work either, like the border security laws...

But I did some research, and you're right, many states don't have registration rules. But it's very interesting that the states that do have registration rules are the ones where many of these mass killings are happening. California, Connecticut both have them. It's also significant that the shooting in Colorado happened in a "gun free zone".

It's interesting to me that you agree with the bishops, yet you don't comply with them voluntarily...or did you submit to a background check? You said you didn't register it, so that partially answers the question. It is interesting that people can actually agree with someone in word and not live up to the spirit of that word...it's the same way with taxes, isn't it? You don't voluntarily pay more to the tax authorities just because it's a good thing to do, do you?

 

[MikeK]

What are you talking about? Who would I have registered it with? What background check would I have submitted myself to? These things don't exist for private sales. I have a grapefruit I'd like to obtain a background check for and register, but I haven't the faintest idea how.

State and municipal registration programs simply do no good and should all be repealed. Any person can say "I sold my gun that was later used in a crime to a guy in (insert name of non-registration state or city), I didn't get his name. That's the last I saw it" and that is exactly what straw-buyers do. Only when one organization with one database and one set of rules is involved can the law become useful. Every State and municipal ban should be stricken down because they do no good.

 

[AMDG]

Why again were the police negligent? Seems that the police KNEW beforehand. Also seems to me that as a mentally ill person, it is strange that he even legally possessed the guns used to kill his last three people in the FIRST PLACE.

» Police knew about killer's videos during welfare check » News -- GOPUSA

 

[MikeK]

Also seems to me that as a mentally ill person, it is strange that he even legally possessed the guns used to kill his last three people in the FIRST PLACE.

Agreed. We need to strengthen the system by which mentally ill people are recorded in our society. What solution do you propose to the problem that the Nics check (only required in dealer-sold guns, of course) can only detect those who their State reports as having "been adjudicated as a mental defectiveor committed to a mental institution." I think we could raise that bar a tad.

 

[Root of Jesse]

How about making private gun sales illegal? At the very least, there needs to be a third party that's responsible for doing necessary background checks.

Frankly, any law can be worked around. Any law. So what we've been saying still is true-laws only work when people want to obey them, and the penalties for disobeying them are very severe. But if you want to live in a society where guns are banned, this country is not that society. Gun ownership by the populace is a right granted by our constitution. Why? Because if the population has no guns, and the government does, that gives the government undue power over the population.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What are you talking about? Who would I have registered it with? What background check would I have submitted myself to? These things don't exist for private sales. I have a grapefruit I'd like to obtain a background check for and register, but I haven't the faintest idea how.

State and municipal registration programs simply do no good and should all be repealed. Any person can say "I sold my gun that was later used in a crime to a guy in (insert name of non-registration state or city), I didn't get his name. That's the last I saw it" and that is exactly what straw-buyers do. Only when one organization with one database and one set of rules is involved can the law become useful. Every State and municipal ban should be stricken down because they do no good.

What I'm talking about is advocating something you're not willing to do voluntarily yourself.
So, if you're saying that you would if you could, but you can't, ok. I see lots of people, though, like Diane Feinstein, who advocate for more gun control, but when the chips were down, they wanted the ability to carry a weapon themselves. Or someone wealthy, like Warren Buffet, who advocates for higher taxes on the wealthy, but he's not willing to volunteer his own $$$ to help pay down the debt.
So, I'm not really accusing you (since the mechanism doesn't exist). But I am convicting the 'do as I say, not as I do' crowd. And many, if not most, bishops have body guards who carry weapons.

 

[New Legacy]

'Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.'

 

[MikeK]

How about making private gun sales illegal? At the very least, there needs to be a third party that's responsible for doing necessary background checks.

Agreed, though I am all for private sales. I think the FBI does a great job with the NiCS check. It is pretty good at flagging criminals, it is pretty fast, and it is inexpensive. It could do a better job at flagging crazies, but there is a whole different lobbying group trying to keep records of the mentally ill out of Federal databases, so we have to wait a bit for that. I'd like to see a system where private sales take place at a licensed dealership. Wanna sell a gun to the guy down the street? Great, Letha's go to the gun shop and they'll handle the background check and transfer for, say, $20, most of which is profit to the gun shop. This is how guns sold over the internet work today, it's a solid system. On top if that, allow the FBI to maintain records of these transactions and now we have a painless registration system in place. This is what we've done with machine guns for years, and you never here of crimes committed with legally owned machine guns. The law requiring them to be registered from 1934 on was a good and effective example of gun legislation. Unfortunately, Reagan banned further creation of machine guns for the civilian market in 1986 and drove prices through the roof To that point, it worked well.

Frankly, any law can be worked around. Any law. So what we've been saying still is true-laws only work when people want to obey them, and the penalties for disobeying them are very severe. But if you want to live in a society where guns are banned, this country is not that society. Gun ownership by the populace is a right granted by our constitution. Why? Because if the population has no guns, and the government does, that gives the government undue power over the population.

Indeed! The argument is not guns vs no guns, it is are we doing everything we can reasonably do to protect people from guns without infringing upon the right (yes, I said right) of people who wish to own one?

 

[MikeK]

What I'm talking about is advocating something you're not willing to do voluntarily yourself.
So, if you're saying that you would if you could, but you can't, ok. I see lots of people, though, like Diane Feinstein, who advocate for more gun control, but when the chips were down, they wanted the ability to carry a weapon themselves. Or someone wealthy, like Warren Buffet, who advocates for higher taxes on the wealthy, but he's not willing to volunteer his own $$$ to help pay down the debt.
So, I'm not really accusing you (since the mechanism doesn't exist). But I am convicting the 'do as I say, not as I do' crowd. And many, if not most, bishops have body guards who carry weapons.

I don't know that most Bishops have bodyguards, they might though. I think that every sane, law-abiding person who wants a gun should be free to get one. I think that we also need to be able to track every gun. Anyone who is seeking to outright ban guns is as much my enemy as anyone standing in the way of life saving legislation, perhaps moreso.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't know that most Bishops have bodyguards, they might though. I think that every sane, law-abiding person who wants a gun should be free to get one. I think that we also need to be able to track every gun. Anyone who is seeking to outright ban guns is as much my enemy as anyone standing in the way of life saving legislation, perhaps moreso.

I don't know about most, quite honestly. I know that at least 10 American bishops do. The reason I know about a couple is that when one particular bishop became archbishop, I noted a significant person in attendance at masses in both locales. And then one day, he was at the church I serve at daily Mass, and I asked him directly. He told me he was, and said that many do have them. At least in the major cities.

I agree with you, pretty much, Mike. There needs to be control. It's also like a lot of hot button issues, both 'sides' recognize the problem, and they just have different ideas about how to address it. Many times both are partially wrong. One thing I do know...Republicans don't want 'dirty air, dirty water, and don't want people to die', as was suggested by one congressman. We do want reasoned approaches to the problems.

 

[Armoured]

We do want reasoned approaches to the problems.

...for example?

 

[Root of Jesse]

...for example?

What topic are you asking about? If it's the one being addressed, you can go back and read my previous posts for that answer.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Agreed, though I am all for private sales. I think the FBI does a great job with the NiCS check. It is pretty good at flagging criminals, it is pretty fast, and it is inexpensive. It could do a better job at flagging crazies, but there is a whole different lobbying group trying to keep records of the mentally ill out of Federal databases, so we have to wait a bit for that. I'd like to see a system where private sales take place at a licensed dealership. Wanna sell a gun to the guy down the street? Great, Letha's go to the gun shop and they'll handle the background check and transfer for, say, $20, most of which is profit to the gun shop. This is how guns sold over the internet work today, it's a solid system. On top if that, allow the FBI to maintain records of these transactions and now we have a painless registration system in place. This is what we've done with machine guns for years, and you never here of crimes committed with legally owned machine guns. The law requiring them to be registered from 1934 on was a good and effective example of gun legislation. Unfortunately, Reagan banned further creation of machine guns for the civilian market in 1986 and drove prices through the roof To that point, it worked well.



Indeed! The argument is not guns vs no guns, it is are we doing everything we can reasonably do to protect people from guns without infringing upon the right (yes, I said right) of people who wish to own one?

A lot of the argument is exactly guns vs no guns. Same thing with fossil fuels, global warming, and so on. There are reasoned approaches to all these problems that don't involve starvation of resources. Encouraging conservation to the extent that all of us are capable is a great thing (speaking of fossil fuels). Being good stewards of our planet is, too. Doesn't mean we can't ranch cattle, does it?

 

[RileyG]

The autism spectrum is broader than originally believed. While we can quibble about where the edge of the autism spectrum (mild Aspergers) ends and mere eccentricity begins, it is callous to intimate that people with Aspergers don't need some educational and therapeutic help to become the best they can be.

That is correct- there are people who are autistic who are on the higher end, middle, and lower end.

 

[RileyG]

Lord, have mercy.

Eternal Rest grant unto them, O LORD, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. Amen.

 

[MikeK]

A lot of the argument is exactly guns vs no guns.

By who? I can think of precisely one politician who would like to see all privately-held guns banned, and her party does not support her in that effort. We should all do as our Bishops do and focus on the new legislation that they advocate for while resisting any effort at preventing mentally healthy, law abiding people from owning and carrying guns if they choose to.

Same thing with fossil fuels, global warming, and so on. There are reasoned approaches to all these problems that don't involve starvation of resources. Encouraging conservation to the extent that all of us are capable is a great thing (speaking of fossil fuels). Being good stewards of our planet is, too. Doesn't mean we can't ranch cattle, does it?

It doesn't.