• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Criminals don't shop at gun stores

Red:
That is detail that could be managed.

You're ignoring the purpose of that part of the process. Obviously, what I proposed is a high level process, and my explication in that other thread is to provide the substance of the general nature of accountability and to illustrate the shift in the focus of the "internal control" process as goes managing accountability.


Blue
I required no such thing. I said that's something a gun owner could agree to (or not).
Loss/Theft Exclusion: Individuals who and organizations that report their firearms as lost or stolen will not be held culpable, provided they (1) file the report, or can show documentation of having notified law enforcement officers of the weapon's loss/theft, prior to the crime's commission. and (2) allow. without a search warrant, law enforcement officers to examine the property to which they hold title/lease and from which their gun was stolen or lost.

You said unless they agree to both or they would be held liable.
 
Red:
??? -- Um, well, yes. It is a proposal for the implementation of a new approach to managing accountability. Of course, there would need to be new enabling infrastructure elements to support it.

A point of the proposal was to illustrate, at a high level, a model for accountability, not to lay out a full-on project implementation proposal. People here gripe about the length of some of my posts. Would you/they even read a post that's as long as a full on proposal for implementing the idea I outlined? Not that it matters whether anyone would or not...I wouldn't produce such a document absent a qualified client who'll pay for my and my team's services to implement the idea. (Sorry, but I don't do free consulting. You know what else I don't do? Provide implementation services to governments. There is also the matter that I retired last year, so I don't do that type of thing for anyone these days.)

Well currently is important because right now there are between 300 million and 500 million guns owned by Americans. There's no way to coerce them to register these millions and millions and millions of fire arms.

And to register them is a lose-lose for the gun owner even if they decide to sell them.
 
Loss/Theft Exclusion: Individuals who and organizations that report their firearms as lost or stolen will not be held culpable, provided they (1) file the report, or can show documentation of having notified law enforcement officers of the weapon's loss/theft, prior to the crime's commission. and (2) allow. without a search warrant, law enforcement officers to examine the property to which they hold title/lease and from which their gun was stolen or lost.

You said unless they agree to both or they would be held liable.

The point of the warrantless search is really just to preliminarily "test" one's lawfulness, truthfulness and probity. Obviously, if one is law abiding, one isn't going to report a gun lost/stolen while also having possession of it. Additionally, and more importantly, if a gun is truly stolen from one's property, and one reports it so, cops are going to want to look at the premises to see whether the thief left any evidence that could lead to finding/identifying him/her. The sooner cops can obtain any such evidence that exists, the better their odds of finding the thief, and hopefully, the gun. I'd think a law abider would want to abet the cops doing just those two things, and not forcing cops to go get a warrant is one way to do so.

Theft:
  • If one's gun is stolen from one's vehicle, perhaps while it was parked at a mall, the cops are going to want to look over the car right then and there. Why not let them?
  • If the gun is stolen from a building, the cops who show up to take the report need to examine points of ingress and egress and the area from which the gun is said to have been stolen. They don't need to check the whole damn building, and allowing them to do so isn't an aim of what I proposed.
Loss:
  • Losses are somewhat different than thefts. Sure, the gun's still gone, but the whole point of a gun being lost is that one doesn't know from where it was lost. Accordingly, where is there to search? If one tells the cops, "I lost it in my house/car," well one must necessarily then still has possession of the gun, even if one doesn't know where. One should keep looking for it.

    Of course, the whole point of something being lost is that one doesn't know where or when it disappeared. The best one can do is identify the last known place/time when one had possession of the gun. That said, there's really no place for the cops to sagely direct their attention/search; thus the warrantless search aspect of that section of the post isn't germane....the last place one knows one had the gun is, obviously, not a place to look because in that time/place, one had the damn thing.

    "I lost it on the Acela when I was going from DC to NYC." No, the cops aren't going to go looking on the Acela and the gun owner need not ask Amtrak for permission for the cops to do so.
On some level, I'd think folks'd think about the proposal in a rational manner.
 
Last edited:
The point of the warrantless search is really just to preliminarily "test" one's lawfulness, truthfulness and probity. Obviously, if one is law abiding, one isn't going to report a gun lost/stolen while also having possession of it. Additionally, and more importantly, if a gun is truly stolen from one's property, and one reports it so, cops are going to want to look at the premises to see whether the thief left any evidence that could lead to finding/identifying him/her. The sooner cops can obtain any such evidence that exists, the better their odds of finding the thief, and hopefully, the gun. I'd think a law abider would want to abet the cops doing just those two things, and not forcing cops to go get a warrant is one way to do so.

Theft:
  • If one's gun is stolen from one's vehicle, perhaps while it was parked at a mall, the cops are going to want to look over the car right then and there. Why not let them?
  • If the gun is stolen from a building, the cops who show up to take the report need to examine points of ingress and egress and the area from which the gun is said to have been stolen. They don't need to check the whole damn building, and allowing them to do so isn't an aim of what I proposed.
Loss:
  • Losses are somewhat different than thefts. Sure, the gun's still gone, but the whole point of a gun being lost is that one doesn't know from where it was lost. Accordingly, where is there to search? If one tells the cops, "I lost it in my house/car," well one must necessarily then still has possession of the gun, even if one doesn't know where. One should keep looking for it.

    Of course, the whole point of something being lost is that one doesn't know where or when it disappeared. The best one can do is identify the last known place/time when one had possession of the gun. That said, there's really no place for the cops to sagely direct their attention/search; thus the warrantless search aspect of that section of the post isn't germane....the last place one knows one had the gun is, obviously, not a place to look because in that time/place, one had the damn thing.

    "I lost it on the Acela when I was going from DC to NYC." No, the cops aren't going to go looking on the Acela and the gun owner need not ask Amtrak for permission for the cops to do so.
On some level, I'd think folks'd think about the proposal in a rational manner.

A lot if words to try and justify a warrantless search.

You've put time into your proposal I will give you that. I disagree with most of it and will do all in my power to make sure it never becomes a reality
 
A lot if words to try and justify a warrantless search.

You've put time into your proposal I will give you that. I disagree with most of it and will do all in my power to make sure it never becomes a reality

Red:
You missed the whole point of that post....Not that it matters for as your second paragraph above indicates, we're done chatting...and if we weren't in yours, we are in mine.
 
Red:
It's already an enforceable, and for ages enforced, legal doctrine: Imputed Criminal Liability.

After a quick scan of your article, it seems that the historic enforceability to which you keep referring is only under specific sets of circumstances ("abetting", "possession", "conspiracy", and a few other morally bankrupt concepts that have nonetheless been criminalized in the past).

Can you direct me to federal case law where this concept has actually been enforced in a criminal case related to a felony commited using a firearm that had been previously owned by an otherwise innocent person? Or, if such case law doesn't exist, can you direct me to federal statutes that support this specific instance of "Imputed Criminal Liability" (I lost my gun, but I can be found guilty if a criminal commits a crime with it)?
 
the main goal of leftwing anti gun activists is NOT to disarm criminals but to punish people who don't vote their way

It's about control. They can't control an armed populace as easy as a disarmed populace.

The Brits knew the same thing in 1775.
 
If you can discern some non-registration way to know who, by dint of their owning a given firearm, was responsible to ensure and provide for the lawful and responsible use of any gun found subsequently to have been used unlawfully, I'm willing to exchange, in the accountability model I outlined, that method for registration.

What I want effected is a way to hold accountable the person(s) whose duty it was to ensure a gun to which they are the person recognized as the title holder of a gun unlawfully used be held accountable for said unlawful use, regardless of whether the title holder pulled the trigger. If you have a proposal that can effectively abet and achieve that end, I'm all ears.

I oppose any such law. I can't be held responsible for someone who steals my gun and commits a crime with it.

This is just another communist scheme to punish law abiding citizens.
 
Drug dealers don't shop at Walgreens.
 
And how do they get on the black market?

Typically, straw buyers or theft. Only the more heavy duty semi and auto rifles tend to be smuggled, and even then it's a lot tougher to smuggle guns than drugs. Beside's, a rifle's weight in heroin makes it a lot more profitable to smuggle the heroin.



Of course, we can't have things like gun registration that would nail straw buyers to the wall because OMG Obama [someone] might come back to take our guns or whatever vague complaints about overbearing government one wishes to offer. So, enjoy the robust black market for guns, I guess.

(And frankly, I suspect some do enjoy that market's existence even if they don't participate in it. If we actually did succeed in massively shrinking the black market, "good guys" with guns would have a lot weaker argument for wanting a gun for safety. After all, if the black market is very small, you'd be far less likely to need a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Though I must grant that the vast majority of people do not choose their positions that strategically.)

That's exactly why we can't have registration.
 
Where do you think the black market gets the guns? Many probably from people who legally bought them. What, the black market just manufactures their own gun? What the hell is the point?

Oh, and everybody is a "responsible gun owner" and not a criminal, until they shoot somebody. And that happens all the time

That's how our system works. Innocent, until proven guilty.
 
Oddly enough in my almost seventy years, I've never felt like I needed to kill anyone. Is there something wrong with me?

I'm not sure what your health status is but if you've never gone hunting I would recommend giving it a try if you are able to.
 
I'm not sure what your health status is but if you've never gone hunting I would recommend giving it a try if you are able to.

I'm not against guns in general. My pops hunted, kept his rifle in the closet, no big thing. I'm against the idea of how many folks think a gun solves so many different problems.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
 
I'm not sure what your health status is but if you've never gone hunting I would recommend giving it a try if you are able to.

Sorry. Thanks for asking about my health, pretty dang good for an old fart.
 
Sorry. Thanks for asking about my health, pretty dang good for an old fart.

No worries. Did you ever get to go out hunting with your dad?

Some of my best memories are walking in soy bean fields with my dad and grandfather with a blaze orange hat too large for my head and .410 slung over my shoulder. I thought I was King **** when I bagged my first quail.
 
No worries. Did you ever get to go out hunting with your dad?

Some of my best memories are walking in soy bean fields with my dad and grandfather with a blaze orange hat too large for my head and .410 slung over my shoulder. I thought I was King **** when I bagged my first quail.

Nah. I was raised in a large city. Hunting was his and his brothers vacation, no kids.
 
No worries. Did you ever get to go out hunting with your dad?

Some of my best memories are walking in soy bean fields with my dad and grandfather with a blaze orange hat too large for my head and .410 slung over my shoulder. I thought I was King **** when I bagged my first quail.

I know there are many folks who depend on firearms for food and fun. I have zero objection. It's all the lies and misleading crap from both sides that drives me crazy. Like assault rifles that the left always says. To the best of my knowledge there are laws against true assault rifles in this country, people are not allowed to have them unless you are heavily licensed. No? A weapon that looks like an ar-15 doesn't make it one, you have to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot. No? Do you personally hunt with an assault rifle with a thirty round magazine? No? If you can get thirty shots off at your game, it's cardboard. We can compromise but it doesn't help business if we do.
 
I know there are many folks who depend on firearms for food and fun. I have zero objection. It's all the lies and misleading crap from both sides that drives me crazy. Like assault rifles that the left always says. To the best of my knowledge there are laws against true assault rifles in this country, people are not allowed to have them unless you are heavily licensed. No? A weapon that looks like an ar-15 doesn't make it one, you have to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot. No? Do you personally hunt with an assault rifle with a thirty round magazine? No? If you can get thirty shots off at your game, it's cardboard. We can compromise but it doesn't help business if we do.

When I hear compromise it is always about gun owners giving something up

gun banners idea of compromise is taking only half our guns. then ten years later-they want half of those that are currently legal. that is not compromise. the founders had it right. government leaves the rights of the people intact and the people won't use their arms to overthrow the government
 
Back
Top Bottom