Discussion in 'The War Room' started by spamking, Jan 10, 2019.
The driving point and affect of the laws is the time the violent criminals are separated from society to prevent them from duplicating* their actions, and hence why the main concern with them getting released early is whether they're going to do it again.
Safeguarding the public and deterring future harm are definitely intertwined. When I talk about deterrence I’m casting a wider net, though.
The deterrence aspect is not only applying to the criminal, but any would be criminals. The law maintains it’s effectiveness so long as it remains just that, the law. It’s the reason we impose a minimum sentence for many crimes and completely ignore circumstances. This also makes a prosecutors work easier, but again, that’s really another subject. The issue is that you and I both know that’s bullshit, but for the foreseeable future this deterrence aspect is going to remain the legislators focus. No one ever lost an election because they were too hard on crime.
The effect of that law would be nonsense, for more reasons than you listed, but that’s hardly a deviation from the norm.
You know, I’m thinking I should’ve just said we have a shit ton of stupid rules and regulations, so what’s one more?
Wood stock gun good,black gun stock bad. That is about all liberals know about guns.
By prohibited possessors or by folks who have a firearm or magazine supposedly banned in their state?
* Felony murder rule is another great example of deterrence being the driving force behind punishment.
The idea that you can be charged with the highest degree of murder in many states should an accidental or negligent death occur during the commission of a felony, in theory, should deter people from committing felonies, or at least encourage the felony to be carried out in the safest possible way.
Or firearm specifications in drug trafficking crimes. The theory is that if you know you will get five years minimum if you are in possession of a weapon while you are carrying out your drug crime, again in theory, should encourage you to either not commit drug trafficking crimes, or at least encourages drug dealers and gang members to not brings guns to a sale.
^all of this is bullshit and doesn’t work— I’m not down with this, but there is a lot of evidence of the general argument I’m putting forth.
Well since an assault can be produced with anything of substantial hardness I’d say any gun fits that description.
I’m referring to prohibited possessors. Weapons under disability in my state.
Really only becomes relevant because those are the people who are going to be hit the hardest by this hypothetical legislation we’re discussing.
But likewise, if you are in possession of a prohibited weapon, and you live in a state where this crime carries prison time, then I would say the same thing.
I’m not suggesting there aren’t other factors at play.
I said it in my previous post on this page, but I’m also not suggesting that the deterrence aspect only applies to the criminal, you’re both right when you point to that because it is clearly important but it is more than that.
That does not change the fact that the point of each law on the books is primarily to deter society from committing that crime. I don’t think anyone would argue that.
I don't think violent felons should be able to possess them.
This law wouldn't necessarily impact them any more than their felony conviction.
Folks in states with a high capacity magazine or evil "assault" rifle ban should keep them and own them. Never turn them in.
No I agree, but you can get hit with a weapons under disability when you’re released for more than violent crimes. A lot of people serve time for a drug trafficking crime and upon release are still under some kind of surveillance. If they have a weapon it’s a new charge and back to prison. If it only applied to violent felons I wouldn’t have an issue.
I agree with your second point. I wouldn’t either.
I especially like that you specified "violent felons". Doesn't make much sense to strip someone of credit card fraud or petty theft from having their constitutionally protected rights.
You’re exactly right. The statute in my state is ridiculously broad (and even has a specification for ANY felony drug crime):
It just doesn’t make sense.
By definition that's true for any penalties or punishments.
“Shall not be infringed.” See, that wasn’t difficult, was it?
lets just ban drinking for everyone, to prevent those that choose to drink and drive!
I mean it's the same logic
so when people say 'nobody is trying to take your guns, stop exaggerating!'......
this doesn't count tho?
Yeah but it says "regulated".... or something .
It's an interesting paradox how the 2nd Amendment simultaneously says the federal government can't infringe on the peoples' right to keep and bear, and grants it the authority to dictate the terms of our ownership and use. It's almost like using that definition of "regulate" isn't correct.
You know, I noticed the people that altered their views on here, never seem to change them based on an interpretation of the constitution. The people that want to strip rights and property are going to read the most clear and concise amendment however the hell they want to read it. @lfd0311 being the quintessential example.
Separate names with a comma.