|
ifmaz -> RE: The NRA Conspiracy (1/23/2016 11:07:21 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
But that's the point: laws can only penalize those who break them as they're reactive.
You are making a false arguement. Suppose there were no law prohibiting the "shouting of fire".
The only recourse then would be civil. By making it a criminal penality the law becomes pro-active not reactive.
Again, the law cannot prevent someone from shouting "fire", it can only detail the punishment for shouting "fire". The consequences of shouting "fire" would be the criminal penalties and one must decide if they are willing to (potentially) face those penalties.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Just as laws cannot prevent someone from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, laws cannot prevent a crazy person from obtaining a weapon (bomb, firearm, knife) and inflicting harm on others. If and when that happens, would you rather people be able to protect themselves or cower in a corner hoping they're not the next victim?
You are offering me a position I have never taken. Had you taken the time to make yourself aware of my position in this matter you would not make such foolish arguements.
I have been a life member of the nra since before your father was born.
Congratulations on your NRA membership. I hope you will also consider membership in the Second Amendment Foundation, ACLU, and EFF if you have not already.
As for my "foolish arguments", you have not answered my question.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
As I've said elsewhere, the main deterrent from breaking the law is the chance of being caught combined with the consequences of being caught.
You left out the third and most important reason...the chances of suffering those consequences.
I included that in the "consequences of being caught" bit.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
We speed on the highway because the chance of being caught is low and the consequences of being caught are relatively low as well. By and large people do not murder because the chance of being caught is high and the consequences of being caught are high as well.
The reason most people do not murder is because most people consider it wrong. Those who do murder are most often first timers, typically a crime of passion.
The chance of a professional murderer being caught are almost zero. The penality for first time murder runs typically to 8 years.
I don't see your point here. Are you saying we have a massive number of professional murderers running around?
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
As criminals mostly obtain firearms through family or friends, eg straw purchases,
Wrong...theft is the primary source of firearms used by gangsters (professional criminals)
Incorrect per a Duke University study. What is your source?
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
why bother passing additional laws when the existing law is already in place: prosecute, to the highest degree, those who purchase firearms for others. This means, per the existing laws, 10 years in jail and up to a $250,000 fine, not probation and not more probation. Prosecute those who lie on their ATF-4473 forms. Don't allow the government to say they don't have time when they want to further infringe on our rights.
You are talking to the wrong person. I have never advocated additional laws.
I am sure you are aware of the "fast and furious" issue. Are you aware that it was the state of arizona who refused to prosecute?
Your use of the word "refused" is intriguing. Per your linked article, the Arizona prosecutors could not make a case from purchasing firearms or transferring them to a non-prohibited person because neither action is unlawful. The Arizona prosecutor, Emory Hurley, suggested the ATF obtain proof of someone directing the straw buyer(s). Instead, the ATF forced/persuaded/commanded/asked several stores to knowingly violate not only the law but personal conscience and sell firearms to anyone.
I'm not seeing your point of injecting this into the conversation. Are you attempting to suggest because Arizona didn't/couldn't prosecute someone the federal government is given a free pass, or because Arizona, the state I live in, didn't/couldn't prosecute someone my argument or viewpoint is somehow invalid?
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
On a related note...since you are infavor of enforcing existing laws... how do you feel about the government not enforcing the laws against hireing those who cross the boarder illegally?
Those who cross the boarder illegally commit a misdemeanor. Those who hire them are committing a felony which carries a penality of $250,000 fine and five years in the federal penitentary for each violation. Would you be infavor of the waltons going to prison for 500-1000 years and all of thier property being confiscated...same for gm,ford,tyson foods etc?
If a company, regardless of its size, knowingly hires illegal workers they should be prosecuted as per the law. Unfortunately, the way the law sees corporations, the board of directors will usually not be held accountable and such actions will result in fines.
As a sidenote, the government seems to be fascinated with the number '250,000': it's the maximum insured by the FDIC, the fine for straw purchasing firearms, the fine for hiring an illegal worker, the amount (per day) the government wanted to fine Yahoo for withholding subscriber data, etc etc. I wonder why this amount is so special.
|
|
|
|
