CDZ The best strategy, disarming law abiding gun owners, or keeping criminals locked up.

[Porter Rockwell]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.

Try reading the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How does this relate to the state checking the public records of the state?

Your "papers" would be inclusive of your electronic records

 

[M14 Shooter]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.

Try reading the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How does this relate to the state checking the public records of the state?

Your "papers" would be inclusive of your electronic records

What's that have to do with the state checking the public record to see if you are, say, a felon?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A mixture of harsher sentences for gun crimes and much more invasive background checks is needed. Neither of which disarm anyone.

Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.

Try reading the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How does this relate to the state checking the public records of the state?

Your "papers" would be inclusive of your electronic records

What's that have to do with the state checking the public record to see if you are, say, a felon?

1) In this country there is a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers

2) You have a Right to Privacy

3) There is no probable cause to believe I am a felon just because I'm exercising an unalienable Right.

At a personal level, I think you should REHABILITATE people before sending them back into society AND then restoring them to their full status as a freeman.

With humanists, atheists, and other non-Christians gaining power in this country I'm wondering how long it will be before they want a background check before you vote (you might be a racist you know.) I wonder if the government may some day require a background check before you join a church. And, with the Red Flag Laws, since you've been to see a mental health professional, will they disqualify you from gun ownership for marital issues, a smoking addiction that is psychological (a psychologist may argue that your mental state coming off cigarettes makes you dangerous) ?

Things you think are impossible may be interpreted in ways you could not begin to fathom. BTW, there is a book that discusses the concept (not the specific issue here), but it is call Unintended Consequences.

 

[Blues Man]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

We lock up 2 million people... we don't have enough room to lock people up for "merely having a gun".

If we stop locking up people for nonviolent crimes we'll have plenty of room

Did you know that 2\3 of the people in prison have not even been convicted of a crime but are awaiting trial?

That's the real problem with our so called criminal justice system

 

[M14 Shooter]

Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.

Try reading the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How does this relate to the state checking the public records of the state?

Your "papers" would be inclusive of your electronic records

What's that have to do with the state checking the public record to see if you are, say, a felon?

1) In this country there is a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers
2) You have a Right to Privacy
3) There is no probable cause to believe I am a felon just because I'm exercising an unalienable Right.

Ooohooohoooh.. I see.
You aren't responding to what I actually said, you're making a separate point,
Thanks.

 

[sartre play]

Balance in everything is needed. people who should stay in prisons are let out to make room for more people too be put in prison for minor offences that could be handled in a different way. now with money motivated for profit corporations things have gotten much worse. No reason to take guns away from "responsible gun owners" need some looking at those not responsible gun owners who use guns as a personal enhancement of power, not as a necessary tool .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

We lock up 2 million people... we don't have enough room to lock people up for "merely having a gun".

If we stop locking up people for nonviolent crimes we'll have plenty of room

Did you know that 2\3 of the people in prison have not even been convicted of a crime but are awaiting trial?

That's the real problem with our so called criminal justice system

Most people are in prison over drug offenses. For every drug addict in a mental health facility, there are more than 10 drug addicts in prison. Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and a lot of it comes from the "legal" market. Our society creates drug addicts and then sends them to prison. At what level does this make sense to you?

 

[2aguy]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

We lock up 2 million people... we don't have enough room to lock people up for "merely having a gun".

If we stop locking up people for nonviolent crimes we'll have plenty of room

Did you know that 2\3 of the people in prison have not even been convicted of a crime but are awaiting trial?

That's the real problem with our so called criminal justice system

Most people are in prison over drug offenses. For every drug addict in a mental health facility, there are more than 10 drug addicts in prison. Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and a lot of it comes from the "legal" market. Our society creates drug addicts and then sends them to prison. At what level does this make sense to you?

And most are violent offenders...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...3304ea-7759-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html

Myth No. 1

U.S. prisons are full of nonviolent drug offenders.

------

But the simple truth is that, at a minimum, 55 percent of those in state prison have been convicted of a violent crime — and more than half of these people, or nearly 30 percent of the total prison population, have been found guilty of murder, manslaughter, rape or sexual assault, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Slightly less than 15 percent are incarcerated for drug crimes, even though most Americans believe the figure to be about 50 percent. (Drugs play a bigger role in the federal prison system, but that holds only about 10 percent of all prisoners; most incarcerated people are in state prison.)

The share of those in state prison for committing violence is even greater than 55 percent, however. Prisoners are classified by the most serious offense for which they are convicted, not arrested or charged. So if someone is arrested for a violent crime but ends up pleading guilty to a drug charge, his crime is classified as a nonviolent drug offense, even if the underlying incident — like a domestic violence case in which the victim won’t testify — is the reason the prosecutor sought prison time.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Try reading the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How does this relate to the state checking the public records of the state?

Your "papers" would be inclusive of your electronic records

What's that have to do with the state checking the public record to see if you are, say, a felon?

1) In this country there is a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers
2) You have a Right to Privacy
3) There is no probable cause to believe I am a felon just because I'm exercising an unalienable Right.

Ooohooohoooh.. I see.
You aren't responding to what I actually said, you're making a separate point,
Thanks.

How did I NOT respond to your point? Where is your probable cause?

Donald Trump fights every day from the government snooping into his private affairs and making them public fodder. He is the president of the United States. He holds no greater position than the citizenry he serves. He defends his privacy; I defend mine.

"You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide." A Nazi chant during Hitler's reign attributed to Joseph Goebbels

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

We lock up 2 million people... we don't have enough room to lock people up for "merely having a gun".

If we stop locking up people for nonviolent crimes we'll have plenty of room

Did you know that 2\3 of the people in prison have not even been convicted of a crime but are awaiting trial?

That's the real problem with our so called criminal justice system

Most people are in prison over drug offenses. For every drug addict in a mental health facility, there are more than 10 drug addicts in prison. Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and a lot of it comes from the "legal" market. Our society creates drug addicts and then sends them to prison. At what level does this make sense to you?

And most are violent offenders...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...3304ea-7759-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html

Myth No. 1

U.S. prisons are full of nonviolent drug offenders.

------

But the simple truth is that, at a minimum, 55 percent of those in state prison have been convicted of a violent crime — and more than half of these people, or nearly 30 percent of the total prison population, have been found guilty of murder, manslaughter, rape or sexual assault, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Slightly less than 15 percent are incarcerated for drug crimes, even though most Americans believe the figure to be about 50 percent. (Drugs play a bigger role in the federal prison system, but that holds only about 10 percent of all prisoners; most incarcerated people are in state prison.)

The share of those in state prison for committing violence is even greater than 55 percent, however. Prisoners are classified by the most serious offense for which they are convicted, not arrested or charged. So if someone is arrested for a violent crime but ends up pleading guilty to a drug charge, his crime is classified as a nonviolent drug offense, even if the underlying incident — like a domestic violence case in which the victim won’t testify — is the reason the prosecutor sought prison time.

Either way, if you change the drug culture in this country, you will end up with fewer people in prisons and fewer violent people.

This argument is like being a rodent on a treadmill.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How does this relate to the state checking the public records of the state?

Your "papers" would be inclusive of your electronic records

What's that have to do with the state checking the public record to see if you are, say, a felon?

1) In this country there is a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers
2) You have a Right to Privacy
3) There is no probable cause to believe I am a felon just because I'm exercising an unalienable Right.

Ooohooohoooh.. I see.
You aren't responding to what I actually said, you're making a separate point,
Thanks.

How did I NOT respond to your point?

I said:
Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.
Do you agree or disagree with my point?
Why?

 

[2aguy]

Another story about releasing violent gun offenders is in the press today. This time, it is Washington D.C. complaining about the policy of releasing violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again. This policy is in place in the major cities....including Detroit, D.C., Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis.....all of the places where there are a lot of gun crimes and murders. New York, which had better policies in place after Rudy Guilliani, is now going back to those same policies....catch and release of violent gun offenders.

We lock up 2 million people... we don't have enough room to lock people up for "merely having a gun".

If we stop locking up people for nonviolent crimes we'll have plenty of room

Did you know that 2\3 of the people in prison have not even been convicted of a crime but are awaiting trial?

That's the real problem with our so called criminal justice system

Most people are in prison over drug offenses. For every drug addict in a mental health facility, there are more than 10 drug addicts in prison. Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and a lot of it comes from the "legal" market. Our society creates drug addicts and then sends them to prison. At what level does this make sense to you?

And most are violent offenders...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...3304ea-7759-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html

Myth No. 1

U.S. prisons are full of nonviolent drug offenders.

------

But the simple truth is that, at a minimum, 55 percent of those in state prison have been convicted of a violent crime — and more than half of these people, or nearly 30 percent of the total prison population, have been found guilty of murder, manslaughter, rape or sexual assault, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Slightly less than 15 percent are incarcerated for drug crimes, even though most Americans believe the figure to be about 50 percent. (Drugs play a bigger role in the federal prison system, but that holds only about 10 percent of all prisoners; most incarcerated people are in state prison.)

The share of those in state prison for committing violence is even greater than 55 percent, however. Prisoners are classified by the most serious offense for which they are convicted, not arrested or charged. So if someone is arrested for a violent crime but ends up pleading guilty to a drug charge, his crime is classified as a nonviolent drug offense, even if the underlying incident — like a domestic violence case in which the victim won’t testify — is the reason the prosecutor sought prison time.

Either way, if you change the drug culture in this country, you will end up with fewer people in prisons and fewer violent people.

This argument is like being a rodent on a treadmill.

I have no problem dealing with the victims of drugs without locking them up. Once you become addicted you are not really a person, you are essentially just the addiction...... so if we can find a way to free people from drugs, without locking them up, I'm fine with that. I also don't think we should lock up prostitutes....considering most of them are being trafficked by some other criminal, they are essentially victims, not criminals.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Your "papers" would be inclusive of your electronic records

What's that have to do with the state checking the public record to see if you are, say, a felon?

1) In this country there is a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers
2) You have a Right to Privacy
3) There is no probable cause to believe I am a felon just because I'm exercising an unalienable Right.

Ooohooohoooh.. I see.
You aren't responding to what I actually said, you're making a separate point,
Thanks.

How did I NOT respond to your point?

I said:
Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.
Do you agree or disagree with my point?
Why?

Public records are public records, but I disagree that they should be. Is that so hard to understand?

Due to the right wing and their xenophobia, every minute detail of your life is being recorded. Why? Why does anyone need to know? You say the guy is a felon. Why does it matter?

If someone is a threat, then the prison system should not send them back into society. Armed with a person's name, birthday and SSN, any swinging Richard can learn anything about you. Why don't I want that? How many reasons would I have to give you?

Suppose a guy has a felony record. Suppose it is for a tax dispute wherein he honestly believed he followed the law. What does that have to do with whether he poses a threat by owning a firearm? There is no connection.

The next door neighbor uses all that public record crap to find out about someone. He learns that they have a felony. He's safer now, knowing he can rob them, rape their daughter, and do so with little risk.

I have a feeling that no matter what the scenario, you will have some half assed comeback that you think will send me running for cover. Save the bandwidth. This country was founded on unalienable Rights. They do not require justification to exercise - just a de jure / lawful / constitutional government to make good on their end of the bargain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's that have to do with the state checking the public record to see if you are, say, a felon?

1) In this country there is a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers
2) You have a Right to Privacy
3) There is no probable cause to believe I am a felon just because I'm exercising an unalienable Right.

Ooohooohoooh.. I see.
You aren't responding to what I actually said, you're making a separate point,
Thanks.

How did I NOT respond to your point?

I said:
Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.
Do you agree or disagree with my point?
Why?

Public records are public records, but I disagree that they should be.

I'm sorry -- I don't see where you agreed or disagreed with - that is, responded to - my point.
Please - give it a try.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1) In this country there is a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers
2) You have a Right to Privacy
3) There is no probable cause to believe I am a felon just because I'm exercising an unalienable Right.

Ooohooohoooh.. I see.
You aren't responding to what I actually said, you're making a separate point,
Thanks.

How did I NOT respond to your point?

I said:
Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.
Do you agree or disagree with my point?
Why?

Public records are public records, but I disagree that they should be.

I'm sorry -- I don't see where you agreed or disagreed with - that is, responded to - my point.
Please - give it a try.

When did you quit beating your wife?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ooohooohoooh.. I see.
You aren't responding to what I actually said, you're making a separate point,
Thanks.

How did I NOT respond to your point?

I said:
Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.
Do you agree or disagree with my point?
Why?

Public records are public records, but I disagree that they should be.

I'm sorry -- I don't see where you agreed or disagreed with - that is, responded to - my point.
Please - give it a try.

When did you quit beating your wife?

And thus, you have not responded to my post.
Just like I said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I said:
Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.
Do you agree or disagree with my point?
Why?

Public records are public records, but I disagree that they should be.

I'm sorry -- I don't see where you agreed or disagreed with - that is, responded to - my point.
Please - give it a try.

When did you quit beating your wife?

And thus, you have not responded to my post.
Just like I said.

You are being stupid. You got your reply.

As previously noted:
You aren't responding to what I actually said, you're making a separate point.
Thanks.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Everything that disqualifies you for gun ownership is public record - thus, background checks need be no more invasive than checking said public records.

Try reading the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How does this relate to the state checking the public records of the state?

Your "papers" would be inclusive of your electronic records

What's that have to do with the state checking the public record to see if you are, say, a felon?

1) In this country there is a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers

2) You have a Right to Privacy

3) There is no probable cause to believe I am a felon just because I'm exercising an unalienable Right.

At a personal level, I think you should REHABILITATE people before sending them back into society AND then restoring them to their full status as a freeman.

With humanists, atheists, and other non-Christians gaining power in this country I'm wondering how long it will be before they want a background check before you vote (you might be a racist you know.) I wonder if the government may some day require a background check before you join a church. And, with the Red Flag Laws, since you've been to see a mental health professional, will they disqualify you from gun ownership for marital issues, a smoking addiction that is psychological (a psychologist may argue that your mental state coming off cigarettes makes you dangerous) ?

Things you think are impossible may be interpreted in ways you could not begin to fathom. BTW, there is a book that discusses the concept (not the specific issue here), but it is call Unintended Consequences.

"With humanists, atheists, and other non-Christians gaining power in this country I'm wondering how long it will be before they want a background check before you vote"


with conservative christian republicans in charge I worry more about atheists and rational people losing their rights.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Public records are public records, but I disagree that they should be.

I'm sorry -- I don't see where you agreed or disagreed with - that is, responded to - my point.
Please - give it a try.

When did you quit beating your wife?

And thus, you have not responded to my post.
Just like I said.

You are being stupid. You got your reply.

As previously noted:
You aren't responding to what I actually said, you're making a separate point.
Thanks.

No separate point is being made. Do you agree or disagree that Donald Trump is president? Your question is equally ludicrous. AND if you can't read the answer, then go the Hell back to school.

Be that as it may, the citizenry has a way to respond to background checks:

'The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

There is only one thing left for the American people to decide:

Do we want a government run by we, the people OR one where the United States Supreme Court gets to proclaim themselves as gods?


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry [3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia,]

Don't presume you can step on that jewel.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Try reading the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How does this relate to the state checking the public records of the state?

Your "papers" would be inclusive of your electronic records

What's that have to do with the state checking the public record to see if you are, say, a felon?

1) In this country there is a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one's peers

2) You have a Right to Privacy

3) There is no probable cause to believe I am a felon just because I'm exercising an unalienable Right.

At a personal level, I think you should REHABILITATE people before sending them back into society AND then restoring them to their full status as a freeman.

With humanists, atheists, and other non-Christians gaining power in this country I'm wondering how long it will be before they want a background check before you vote (you might be a racist you know.) I wonder if the government may some day require a background check before you join a church. And, with the Red Flag Laws, since you've been to see a mental health professional, will they disqualify you from gun ownership for marital issues, a smoking addiction that is psychological (a psychologist may argue that your mental state coming off cigarettes makes you dangerous) ?

Things you think are impossible may be interpreted in ways you could not begin to fathom. BTW, there is a book that discusses the concept (not the specific issue here), but it is call Unintended Consequences.

"With humanists, atheists, and other non-Christians gaining power in this country I'm wondering how long it will be before they want a background check before you vote"


with conservative christian republicans in charge I worry more about atheists and rational people losing their rights.

No such group of people are in charge.