- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Kinda illustrates the point that it's a waste of time.
Not much really.
One of the problems with the whole background check is a lack of prosecutorial follow-through. Last time I checked, something over a hundred thousand background checks turned up something, but actual prosecutions were something like a dozen?
Yeah they were turned away in both cases except the bloomberg investigation actually showed it while the Acorn thing didn't
I noticed no one had posted about Mayor Bloomberg's undercover investigation at Gun Shows across the country. After seeing the highly partisan way the Acorn "undercover investigation" was carried out I thought it would be nice to show how a real undercover investigation works. The premise: Private investigators were sent to gun shows in various states to buy guns from private dealers. The way the law works now is that private dealers do not have to run background checks at gunshows but if they feel that the person would not pass a background check they are obligated not to sell guns to the person. So the PIs bought guns under the premise that they would fail a background check. Now in the videos there are dealers who follow the law and those who don't.
What they found is 35 out of the 47 dealers they approached, sold them arms illegally.
YouTube - The Loophole: Private Sellers Who Arent Private
A dealer allowing a straw purchase (which is illegal)
YouTube - Illegal Sale #2: Allowing Illegal Straw Purchase
A dealer stopping a straw purchase (when someone buys a gun and has someone else fill out the paper work for them)
YouTube - Illegal Sale #2: Rejecting Illegal Straw Purchase
Several dealers ignoring the investigator saying he couldn't pass a background check
YouTube - llegal Sale #1: Private Dealer Reactions
Dealer following the law and denying the purchase
YouTube - Illegal Sale #1: Seller Passes the Integrity Test
Dealer failing to follow the law
YouTube - Illegal Sale #1: Sellers Fail the Integrity Test
Now this is what a real undercover investigation looks like. If the Acorn guy was interested in being honest he would release videos showing people who turned him away.
GREAT POST!!
Seriously, the media obsessed over the Acorn Boogie-Man, but guns...:doh
For some reason I find hard to be appalled over individuals ignoring anti-2nd amendment laws,especially individuals who are not receiving tax payer funds.
Criminals really don't need to go through channels like these to get guns.
The whole "gun show loophole" thing is a red herring.
The fact is that most states do not require private sellers, whether at a gun show or in someone's yard somewhere, to run background checks or register or etc.
Some FFL dealers break the law.... what a shock.
All of this is simply looking at a type of tool that is sometimes used in crime. None of this addresses the root problems of this whole issue.
Root problem number One: WHY do we have dangerous repeat-offender criminals with a long record of violent crime out on the street at all? By the time they get to the point of using guns to commit crime, most criminals have a long record. They've been charged with many petty crimes and likely convicted of a few. Some of them have already committed a serious violent crime, served time, and gotten out. Why should someone who held a pistol on a Quicky-mart clerk for the contents of the register EVER get out of prison? He's demonstrated a total lack of regard for human life and the utter selfishness to risk an innocent life for the sake of less than $100.
When someone willingly puts the lives of innocents at risk for their own gain for criminal purposes, or otherwise demonstrates that they will do serious harm to others without any legitimate justification, we should remove them from society permanently.
Root problem number Two: We should never release a felon from prison unless we're reasonably sure he/she is no longer a threat to society. If we're reasonably sure they are no longer a threat to society, WHY should they lose their rights as a citizen? If they are unworthy of their rights as a citizen, or if the nature of their crime is such that they can never be trusted with arms again (ie forcible rapist), then WHY are we letting them out at all??
(because if they want a gun, they can find a way to get one!)
The two questions are related, you see.
Get the real-deal dangerous criminals off the streets and keep them off the streets, and guns won't really be an issue.
How is making sure someone isn't a criminal,
or isn't mentally unbalanced,
anti-second amendment?
Don't you mean ex-criminal? If they served their time then they are no longer a criminal and I have no problem with them having 2nd amendment rights. Someone who is the process of committing a crime has nothing to prevent him from getting a fire arm the legal route if he or she has no criminal record and even he does have a criminal record there is nothing stopping him from getting it an illegal route or buying from a private owner.
So if the government made a law saying you do not have 1st amendment once you get out of prison you would be cool with that? When it s taking away rights from citizens and inconveniencing law abiding citizens it is anti-2nd amendment.
What if they're on parole?
Do you think there should be any limitations? i think this is where we disagree.
If they are that dangerous to not be trusted to exercise all their constitutional rights then they should not be let out in the first place.
what if they're on parole?
I noticed no one had posted about Mayor Bloomberg's undercover investigation at Gun Shows across the country. After seeing the highly partisan way the Acorn "undercover investigation" was carried out I thought it would be nice to show how a real undercover investigation works. The premise: Private investigators were sent to gun shows in various states to buy guns from private dealers. The way the law works now is that private dealers do not have to run background checks at gunshows but if they feel that the person would not pass a background check they are obligated not to sell guns to the person. So the PIs bought guns under the premise that they would fail a background check. Now in the videos there are dealers who follow the law and those who don't.
What they found is 35 out of the 47 dealers they approached, sold them arms illegally.
YouTube - The Loophole: Private Sellers Who Arent Private
A dealer allowing a straw purchase (which is illegal)
YouTube - Illegal Sale #2: Allowing Illegal Straw Purchase
A dealer stopping a straw purchase (when someone buys a gun and has someone else fill out the paper work for them)
YouTube - Illegal Sale #2: Rejecting Illegal Straw Purchase
Several dealers ignoring the investigator saying he couldn't pass a background check
YouTube - llegal Sale #1: Private Dealer Reactions
Dealer following the law and denying the purchase
YouTube - Illegal Sale #1: Seller Passes the Integrity Test
Dealer failing to follow the law
YouTube - Illegal Sale #1: Sellers Fail the Integrity Test
Now this is what a real undercover investigation looks like. If the Acorn guy was interested in being honest he would release videos showing people who turned him away.
As stated earlier, you have compared gun buyers who violate ineffective laws that border on bypassing our 2nd amendment with catching a government-subsidized organization in complicity in violating tax laws in the act of importing illegal, underage teenage prostitutes. And you don't even draw a distinction... amazing!
Now, considering that you seem to know that the investigating couple visited some ACORN offices without obtaining damning video, one must ask how you know this. Assuming that you are right, that means that the investigators did admit that not all ACORN workers exhibited corrupt behavior. Your only metric of the Bloomberg study that seems to qualify it as a "real undercover investigation" is the observation of legal gun sales. Therefore, your contention that ACORN was not always found to be guilty has just proven that the young couple launched a "real undercover investigation". Your own argument defeats your allegations!
Also consider this. You call the ACORN investigation biased, but you consider Bloomberg's lackeys to be unbiased with respect to gun shows. Get real!
I'm sorry, are you advocating life in prison for any sort of violent crime? This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard you say. It isn't practical. First, Prisons only have so much room. To say nothing of how expensive it is to house someone their entire life, to feed them and care for them, when they could otherwise be a productive member of society. Second, life in prison for anything short of rape or murder is just too harsh. The punishment should fit the crime. Also, people change. I mean, people should have the chance to redeem themselves. Isn't that one of the basic tenets of your religion? Let's be realistic here. Very few crimes
How are you ever reasonable sure? You aren't. Not to mention, you can't just sentence someone to prison "until we feel like letting you go." It's not ethical or legal.
I'm sorry Goshin, you have no contact with reality, do you?
I've had the gun pointed at me by someone who is very intent on using it, I understand. But it doesn't mean you become some fascist nutjob.:lamo
Ah, I needed that laugh, thanks.
Bud, I've dealt with more raw reality than you could probably cope with. You should try it sometime, it is very enlightening. Ever stared down the barrel of a gun held by someone who is really pissed at you? It focuses the mind marvelously. Ever had someone try to carve your guts out with a hawkbill knife? It's quite the thrill ride, bud.
And the court systemMost seriously violent criminals are not simply poor misunderstood and misguided youths-who-are-victims-of-society. They are scum who have shed their shell of human compassion, morals or ethics, and many of them have no qualms about killing you becuase you were in the way. Some of them think raping and torturing a man's family in front of him is a fine evening's entertainment.
I'm not talking out my ass, I've known criminals who had this mindset.
See you're not suppose to overdub the voices of Acorn employees with rightwingnuts to make them sound like they're breaking the law. You just can't do that. :roll:The point of posting the video was more about how an undercover investigation is done in comparison to the acorn tapes
I've had the gun pointed at me by someone who is very intent on using it, I understand. But it doesn't mean you become some fascist nutjob.
And the court system
Certain people have no human comapssion, so you give criminals no chance to redeem themselves and you talk about casually executing people? You have no right to claim to be a christian with that mindset. You have no right to mention the founding fathers who believed in inherent human decency when you talk about casually locking people up for life.
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
TRENDS, TRAITS, AND OBSERVATIONS OF ALL OFFENDERS
Previous studies have found that an offender’s criminal past is a compelling indicator of future
recidivism. These findings are validated by the observations of Wisconsin offenders analyzed
for this report. Of adult offenders sentenced to DOC multiple times, those with 1,2,3,4, and 5
prior offenses commit another offense 39%, 50%, 55%, 57%, and 58% of the time respectively.
This re-offending percentage continues to increase with the number of priors.
Also consistent with previous studies, the Wisconsin statistics documented herein demonstrate
that younger offenders recidivate at a rate much higher than older offenders. Roughly half of all
offenses committed by DOC sentenced recidivists were ages 18 through 23. Other Wisconsin
findings consistent with previous studies include the recidivism rates for gender and race. As
expected, male recidivists in Wisconsin re-offended and are re-sentenced to DOC more often
than females (38% versus 27%). American Indian and Black offenders topped the list of
percent recidivating, followed by Hispanics, Whites, and Asian/Pacific Islanders.
.....
Studying individual
offender groups results in the identification of traits unique to those offender groups. For
example, the traits of robbers include:
• Robbers commit more offenses per offender than other offenders.
• Offenses committed by robbers are in general more severe than other offenders (70%
felonies for robbers versus 35% felonies for other offenders).
• Robbers recidivate at a much higher rate than other offenders (65% versus 35%).
• Sentencing robbers may require a longer term view since robbers have criminal careers
that span a long period of time.
• Robbers are younger than other offenders. Recidivistic robbers are younger than
robbers who do not recidivate.
• There is no distinguishable point at which robbers “age out.”
• The recidivism rate of female robbers is much higher than other female offenders (55%
versus 26%).
...
• Studies of the criminal histories of robbers suggest that there are in some cases
identifiable progressions of offenses from retail theft to theft to burglary to robbery.
Yet you casually make comments about how we should execute people if we need to make more room in prisons. See why i don't buy this soul searching? And I ask you why any man ever has the right to kill another man in any situation other than self-defense? Taking a life is the most heinous crime anyone can commit. Committing it on criminals only goes to cheapen life for everyone.Getting kinda personal with the ad-homs there, aren't you?
Again, you are mischaracterizing my position. I'm not talking about all criminals; I'm not even talking about all violent criminals. I'm talking about violent criminals who commit certain types of crimes, which I listed, that put them "beyond the pale of re-acceptance to society" in my opinion.
There is nothing casual about my attitude. I was peripherally involved in a State execution about a decade ago. I did more than a little bit of soul-searching over it, and came to the conclusion that the execution of the man in question for his crime was justice, and that justice needed to be served. I have no problem with executing premeditated murderers, murderers who kill in the commission of a robbery or burglary, forcible rapists, child abusers and similar scum-of-the-earth.
Good, as long as we agree that old testament death penalty laws should have no bearing on a modern society.Before you accuse me of being lacking in Christianity, maybe you should educate yourself about Christian principles:
Exodus 21:12 "Whosoever smite a man so that he die, shall surely be put to death."
Since that's OT, here's some NT to go along with it:
Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Offenders Statistics
The point being that we're putting too many people back on the street, after committing a serious violent felony, who are going to do it again.
When we come up with a fool-proof mind-probe that determines accurately which criminals offenders are likely to commit further serious crime and which aren't, then being a little more flexible might be possible. Until then, too many innocents are dying because we let repeat violent felons out of prison.
If we did it my way, there is no question that many lives would be saved.
Aren't you part of the crowd that, on gun control issues, always yells "If it saves one child's life it is worth it!"
Well, this would save lots of lives.
G.
Yet you casually make comments about how we should execute people if we need to make more room in prisons. See why i don't buy this soul searching? And I ask you why any man ever has the right to kill another man in any situation other than self-defense? Taking a life is the most heinous crime anyone can commit. Committing it on criminals only goes to cheapen life for everyone.
Good, as long as we agree that old testament death penalty laws should have no bearing on a modern society.
Romans 13:3-4 "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. "
This is talking about the government punishing someone who breaks the laws, it is not specifically talking about capital punishment. The phrase is "execute wrath", not "execute". It's a figure of speech meaning that the government will act as a tool for the wrath of God, not anything to do with the death penalty. I recommend using a more accessible and closer translation than King James. Any other argument you want to throw out? I recommend you actually try to figure out what the verse is talking about this time.
So whatever the cost, then? The ends justify the means, forget concepts of redemption and rehabilitation, forget worrying about the bill, forget concepts of justice, even? :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?