10 dead in Oregon Community College shooting

Jiggyfly said:
Nothing in there is unconstitutional, Felons are already penalized for having weapons and 3 strikes is already on the books as a punitive life sentence.

You are the one being stupid it shows you have no idea of what is actually in the constitution or what is actually a current enforecable law.

The only thing that's even different than what is already enforceable is the mandatory life sentence.
Click to expand...

Exactly...and there is one of the biggest issues...these judges aren't enforcing the laws already on the books. I'm saying get rid of the 3 strikes, if you are a felon, you go to prison for life if you are caught with a gun.
 
UncleMilti said:
Exactly...and there is one of the biggest issues...these judges aren't enforcing the laws already on the books. I'm saying get rid of the 3 strikes, if you are a felon, you go to prison for life if you are caught with a gun.
Click to expand...

So you don't pay your child support for a year and are caught with a gun. LIFE IN PRISON!

You drive a car without a license 3 times, and have a gun, LIFE IN PRISON!

It's funny because I find myself arguing against putting felonies on records on a daily basis for things like this.

But the person who wants to actually go and murder someone with that gun, do you think that person cares about the life in prison risk? They won't give two shits about it. If you're brave enough to murder someone, you're brave enough to risk life in prison for possession of a fire arm. So what crime are you really stopping? The current law with regards to felons and fire arms doesn't prevent anything. It was enacted to make people feel better but it has no positive impact. (Except for maybe a felon who is out, owns a gun, and the the prosecutors have nothing else to put the guy in jail for).
 
UncleMilti said:
if you are a felon, you go to prison for life if you are caught with a gun.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this, at least not in a vacuum. If they are charged with a felony while using a gun to commit the crime, sure. Then I wholeheartedly agree.

But what if they are a felon because they got caught with some weed? Or in the case of my wife's uncle, he is a registered sex offender and felon. He spent a little over two years in the Montana State Pen for his crime. When he was released, he married his victim, and they have now been married for over 30 years, and have 5 kids. Should he be sent up for life if he's caught with a shotgun while bird hunting?

I know that is an extreme example, but we can't paint everyone with the same broad brush. If they are convicted felon where the crime involved a gun and violence, then yeah. I agree.
 
Last edited:
NoDak said:
You had me until the bolded part. Not only will that never happen, it's a fantasy. Sure, if there were no guns, it would reduce GUN violence. But if people think that it would curb murders or violence in general, they're living in a dream world.

Mankind is pretty resourceful. There was violence and murders long before guns were around, and would continue if banishing guns was somehow possible. Unless we could also ban things like blunt objects, ropes, knives, anything that could make an explosive, sharp and pointy stabby things, the ability to choke a bitch, etc... Timothy McVeigh, the Chinese bus stop killings, Sept. 11, 2001, Boston Marathon bombers, etc... And there are many more examples. Those are just recent and came to mind.
Click to expand...

Yep. You can look at world history and see mass killings can be done with the crudeist of weapons. Even Samson used a donkey jawbone to wipe out hundreds. Guns are not the problem.
 
Jiggyfly said:
Nothing in there is unconstitutional, Felons are already penalized for having weapons and 3 strikes is already on the books as a punitive life sentence.

You are the one being stupid it shows you have no idea of what is actually in the constitution or what is actually a current enforecable law.

The only thing that's even different than what is already enforceable is the mandatory life sentence.
Click to expand...

Please bone up on the definition of 'shall not be infringed.' It will make you less confused and you might actually not embarrass yourself in future discussions.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
You by the way used the term correctly when it relates to handing out life time jail sentences for a victim-less crime. It's basically the definition of a draconian law.
Click to expand...

3 strike felons can get life time jail sentences now for a victimless crime as well as some drug dealers who have done nothing violent.

Yeah it could be considered draconian but it's already on the books.
 
shane said:
Please bone up on the definition of 'shall not be infringed.' It will make you less confused and you might actually not embarrass yourself in future discussions.
Click to expand...

Don't come in here with that dribble all aspects of the constitution are subject to interpretation there is nothing that he stated that is not already on the books, please show me what you believe he said was unconstitutional or are you saying any restrictions are so?
 
Iamtdg said:
Yeah, the guns sold on the black market now aren't produced anywhere close to the point of sale. The majority are brought over. And if we banned guns, that market would flourish.
Click to expand...

What?

Guns on the black market are bought right here in the U.S. most from going to a gun friendly state like Georgia and then selling them in Connecticut.

Where exactly do you think guns are brought over from?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
 
NoDak said:
I don't agree with this, at least not in a vacuum. If they are charged with a felony while using a gun to commit the crime, sure. Then I wholeheartedly agree.

But what if they are a felon because they got caught with some weed? Or in the case of my wife's uncle, he is a registered sex offender and felon. He spent a little over two years in the Montana State Pen for his crime. When he was released, he married his victim, and they have now been married for over 30 years, and have 5 kids. Should he be sent up for life if he's caught with a shotgun while bird hunting?

I know that is an extreme example, but we can't paint everyone with the same broad brush. If they are convicted felon where the crime involved a gun and violence, then yeah. I agree.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Fellon part is to wide ranging to use as a blanket for anybody with a gun and to tell the truth I am not comfortable with mandatory sentences of any sort.

I was just glad to read somebody who could not be labeled a "liberal" as at least realizing something needs to be addressed.

I know there is no majic law to fix things but a discussion from both sides needs to had.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
So you don't pay your child support for a year and are caught with a gun. LIFE IN PRISON!

You drive a car without a license 3 times, and have a gun, LIFE IN PRISON!

It's funny because I find myself arguing against putting felonies on records on a daily basis for things like this.

But the person who wants to actually go and murder someone with that gun, do you think that person cares about the life in prison risk? They won't give two shits about it. If you're brave enough to murder someone, you're brave enough to risk life in prison for possession of a fire arm. So what crime are you really stopping? The current law with regards to felons and fire arms doesn't prevent anything. It was enacted to make people feel better but it has no positive impact. (Except for maybe a felon who is out, owns a gun, and the the prosecutors have nothing else to put the guy in jail for).
Click to expand...

NoDak said:
I don't agree with this, at least not in a vacuum. If they are charged with a felony while using a gun to commit the crime, sure. Then I wholeheartedly agree.

But what if they are a felon because they got caught with some weed? Or in the case of my wife's uncle, he is a registered sex offender and felon. He spent a little over two years in the Montana State Pen for his crime. When he was released, he married his victim, and they have now been married for over 30 years, and have 5 kids. Should he be sent up for life if he's caught with a shotgun while bird hunting?

I know that is an extreme example, but we can't paint everyone with the same broad brush. If they are convicted felon where the crime involved a gun and violence, then yeah. I agree.
Click to expand...

Sorry guys..my bad. This is what happens when you try to respond at work.

When I say felon, I should have clarified felon meaning someone with a violent offense against them.
 
Jiggyfly said:
Don't come in here with that dribble all aspects of the constitution are subject to interpretation there is nothing that he stated that is not already on the books, please show me what you believe he said was unconstitutional or are you saying any restrictions are so?
Click to expand...
I would say the unauthorized use of medical records constitutes an infringement on the 4th amendment. I don't know if there are any provisions that prevent people with mental health problems from owning weapons. If there are I think they are absolutely unconstitutional.
 
townsend said:
I would say the unauthorized use of medical records constitutes an infringement on the 4th amendment. I don't know if there are any provisions that prevent people with mental health problems from owning weapons. If there are I think they are absolutely unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Sadly this seems to be the case. It boils down to agreeing on a real solution (which doesn't seem to exist) or using what seems to be the best protection for each individual. Some choose firearms.
 
L.T. Fan said:
Sadly this seems to be the case. It boils down to agreeing on a real solution (which doesn't seem to exist) or using what seems to be the best protection for each individual. Some choose firearms.
Click to expand...

I wish I had the solution. I know it's not really fair for me to sit here and shoot down ideas as bad but then not propose my own solution but I really don't have one. All I know is that if what we are trying to stop is people murdering other people with firearms the solution isn't to make guns illegal for a certain percentage of a population. The last thing someone who is committing murder is worried about is being caught possessing a fire arm illegally. Obviously if you are willing to risk the death sentence to commit murder, no sentence for possessing the fire arm will deter you.
 
townsend said:
I would say the unauthorized use of medical records constitutes an infringement on the 4th amendment. I don't know if there are any provisions that prevent people with mental health problems from owning weapons. If there are I think they are absolutely unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Medical records are used in background checks for jobs and security clearance and insurance how is it now a 4th amendment infringement?
 
Jiggyfly said:
Medical records are used in background checks for jobs and security clearance and insurance how is it now a 4th amendment infringement?
Click to expand...

As a person who's been through many background checks, I've never had to disclose any medical records. Moreso HIPAA makes it illegal for any company to use your medical records in a background check or any healthcare provider to disclose them. Finally when we're talking about the government they have to satisfy an even higher criteria for these kinds of searches into your private medical history since they're the only institution bound by the 4th amendment.
 
Jiggyfly said:
Medical records are used in background checks for jobs and security clearance and insurance how is it now a 4th amendment infringement?
Click to expand...

That would be news to me. I haven't experienced it in my career even with governmental security clearances. With insurance companies you authorize them to do so.
 
Jiggyfly said:
What?

Guns on the black market are bought right here in the U.S. most from going to a gun friendly state like Georgia and then selling them in Connecticut.

Where exactly do you think guns are brought over from?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
Click to expand...

The guns are mostly manufactured over seas. That article doesn't say shit about where they are mostly produced. Regard, that's not the over-arching point. Who gives a shit where they originally come from. the point is that if you make guns illegal you will be greatly reducing the revenue flow of gun traffickers in this country. Criminals will get the guns while law abiding citizens wouldn't even know the first step to obtain an illegal gun.
 
UncleMilti said:
Exactly...and there is one of the biggest issues...these judges aren't enforcing the laws already on the books. I'm saying get rid of the 3 strikes, if you are a felon, you go to prison for life if you are caught with a gun.
Click to expand...

I think the felonies should have to contain some element of violence or potential violence. CRock pointed out some felonies and I've seen people doing time for felonies that you'd be surprised to find felonious. You can get charged with a felony for damned near anything.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom