How to lower gun crime...very easy step....10-20-life.....boom....drops the mic.

[woodwork201]

I cant disagree with my ideas that you so skillfully annunciated


Because I’m very pro gun control for criminals

You and Joe Biden both.

 

[woodwork201]

It‘s pretty damned clear. Make mental health providers mandatory reporters so they HAVE to report their mentally Ill patients to be put into the databases that won’t allow them to purchase guns. The gun control laws don’t work because people like you don’t enforce them, you just make excuses for lunatics and criminals until they kill someone and then you blame the tool they used.

See, that's the nature of criminals; they don't obey the law. You can prohibit anyone you want from owning a gun but only the otherwise law-abiding will follow the prohibition. Do you think that someone on the prohibited persons list who is intent on committing a mass shooting will say, "Oh, geeze, I was going to murder 20 people today but it's against the law for me to own a gun so I guess I won't do it."

The Constitution does not even allow for the prohibition of crazy people having guns. Shall NOT be infringed. There's a period at the end of that, not a "except for".

The solution is to quit manufacturing crazy people in the public schools.

 

[Mac-7]

Just show me where in the Constitution the authority to ban anyone, felon or otherwise, from having guns for life. And show me any statistic to suggest that such a ban has any impact on crime. Gun laws only serve to disarm the law-abiding and to make it easier for the criminal to attack the law-abiding.

I share your distrust of liberal gun-grabbers

Unfortunately the Constitution means whatever 5 unelected lawyers on Mount Olympus say it means

Presently the majority agrees with you, but that could change

Or at least the SC mostly agrees with you

On some things it doesent, such as allowing children, criminals, or insane people to own firearms

and I’m grateful for that

But it could all change with the death of one black robe and the appointment of another gun grabbing lib

 

[Blues Man]

We lock up 2 million people, we have another 7 million on probation or parole, and we have 70 million Americans with a police record.

We don't have enough prison space to lock people up for merely committing a crime with a gun.

We lock up the wrong people.

We keep nonviolent offenders in jail and let the animals out

 

[woodwork201]

I share your distrust of liberal gun-grabbers

Unfortunately the Constitution means whatever 5 unelected lawyers on Mount Olympus say it means

Presently the majority agrees with you, but that could change

Or at least the SC mostly agrees with you

On some things it doesent, such as allowing children, criminals, or insane people to own firearms

and I’m grateful for that

But it could all change with the death of one black robe and the appointment of another gun grabbing lib

Sadly, you're correct about one thing. All it takes is for Justice Thomas, may God preserve him and hold a high place in Heaven for him, or Justice Alito to retire from the Court by falling over nea

I know this thread is stale but I've been gone a couple of weeks and, even so, this is important and making the truth available not to you because I know your mind isn't going to change but for the benefit of other readers in the future, whether that future is tomorrow or a few years from now.

My comments are never from a simple distrust of liberal gun-grabbers; my comments are about correcting the lies of the liberal gun grabbers and creating an environment where all Americans can protect their own lives from the harm liberal gun grabbers have planned for them. My work is only secondarily in defense of the Constitution because my love and defense of the Constitution is out of love and defense of the right to life and of the People to protect their lives. That the Constitution protects that right makes the Constitution worth defending but I would defend the right if there was no 2nd Amendment or if there was no Constitution. So, even though I don't trust any liars, including gun grabbers, this certainly is not about me sharing your distrust of gun grabbers.

You're wrong about what the Constitution means. The Constitution means what was intended by those who drafted it and by those who voted to ratify it, both in the Continental Congress and in the State Legislatures. The Supreme Court routinely publishes their opinions on what the Constitution means and it changes nothing in law. On other occasions, they publish opinions that are clearly wrong and later have to reverse themselves or, worse, they fail to reverse themselves. But when they do reverse themselves, the Constitution does not change; it is not modified or amended by judicial edict. If you want to know what the Constitution really means, follow my posts; I will tell you exactly what it means.

You state that you're glad that the Supreme Court disagree with me, suggesting that the opinion of the majority will be announced to be that children, criminals, and your words, the insane, do not enjoy the protection of rights defined in the Bill of Rights. For the sake of discussion, I will replace the term "insane" with anyone that the Government decides is "mentally defective" because that is the term in the law - no need to be insane, just have any condition that the Government says demonstrates a mental defect; you know, like voting for Trump, according to Joe Biden.

So what you are saying is that you hope the Government throws out the Constitution as the standard and uses, instead, a new standard that you choose and that you hope that the Court applies based on your, and you hope their, emotions. Because how, in the name of the Father, did the Nation survive for a hundred and seventy-seven years when no such limitations, not a single one of those you call for, were placed on exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. And just how successful have those restrictions you love worked out?

For 177 years, parents decided whether their children could own guns and they neither required, nor asked for, government help in raising their children. I know that's an unheard of thing today but I always considered it was a better way of life; what do you think? More government telling you how to raise your children or less? But in any case, since 1968 when restrictions on children owning guns was enacted, is there more or less crime?

Since 1961, when the felon ban was expanded to cover all criminal convictions, including misdemeanors, for which a prison sentence greater than 1 year was passed, is there more or less crime?

So, since it is proven that the things you're calling for do not have, and have not had, and cannot have, the effect of reducing crime, I can only assume you want those things purely for the sake of gun control. You make it clear that you agree 100% with Steven Dettelbach, Merrick Garland, and Joe Biden that the Government can and should ignore the Constitution and make up rules about who can own a gun, which guns can be owned, and where can they be used. You seem to disagree with them only in the answers to the questions of who, which, and where but not at all on the question of whether they should.

 

[Mac-7]

You're wrong about what the Constitution means. The Constitution means what was intended by those who drafted it and by those who voted to ratify it

I wish

If 5 judges declare the 2nd Amendment null and void that becomes the new law of the land

Which also applies to any other freedom libs want to take away or impose on us

 

[LuckyDuck]

The way you drop gun crime? You lock up the criminals who commit gun crime...for really long periods of time....

this has the added advantage of not bothering normal gun owners because they don't use their guns for crime or violence...

If they really wanted to bring crime down to civilized levels, they wouldn’t even need to reinvent the wheel to do so.

Florida had a violent crime crisis long ago. Then they implemented a 10-20-Life law. Bad guys toting guns in the commission of violent crimes got a 10-year sentencing enhancement on top of the underlying crime. There were no options for plea bargains, probation or early release. This was hard time.

Thugs discharging their guns picked up twenty extra years, effectively taking them out of circulation for a generation. And if their shots wounded or killed anyone, they got a 25-years to Life enhancement, keeping them locked up for even longer.

With a few short years under 10-20-Life, Florida’s firearm violent crime numbers fell to historic lows.

Chicago’s Violent Crime problem could be solved in a matter of months if Illinois political leaders really wanted it to stop

We ridiculed Murder City USA Mayor Brandon Johnson’s clumsy, dim-witted proposal to buy votes to reduce the rampant violent crime that’s leaving his city a total cesspool of crime and v…

www.gunssavelife.com

But....why wouldn't democrats want to lower the gun crime and murder rates?

Could it be that they believe that high gun crime and gun murder rates give them the best chance they have to ban and confiscate guns?

Errrr...yup...........

While I completely agree with long prison terms for major gun crimes, I would also advocate long prison sentences for individuals found with stolen guns.
The other thing is that long terms don't necessarily deter crime.
My degree is in Criminal Justice and I recall that one of our criminology books and the professor, stated that in the Middle-Ages, pickpockets were publicly hung for that crime and while the hangings were going on, pickpockets would work the crowd. As the most serious punishment one can receive didn't deter pickpockets at the public hanging of pickpockets, I have my reservations that longer sentencing would deter the criminal.
If one looks at Switzerland and that 30% of the population owns firearms, yet crime is minimal we should more closely examine the difference between their society and that of the United States (not that we have the most gun murders in all nations).

 

[AZrailwhale]

While I completely agree with long prison terms for major gun crimes, I would also advocate long prison sentences for individuals found with stolen guns.
The other thing is that long terms don't necessarily deter crime.
My degree is in Criminal Justice and I recall that one of our criminology books and the professor, stated that in the Middle-Ages, pickpockets were publicly hung for that crime and while the hangings were going on, pickpockets would work the crowd. As the most serious punishment one can receive didn't deter pickpockets at the public hanging of pickpockets, I have my reservations that longer sentencing would deter the criminal.
If one looks at Switzerland and that 30% of the population owns firearms, yet crime is minimal we should more closely examine the difference between their society and that of the United States (not that we have the most gun murders in all nations).

I don't know about your teachers, but mine pointed out that while deterrence doesn't work against criminals, long jail sentences DO prevent them from committing additional crimes. Criminals break the law because they honestly believe that they are either too smart to get caught, or simply don't care because penalties are too low to be meaningful.