Thank You Leftists For Killing More Innocent People: Maryland Shooting...

[seer]

I'd support whatever works best in the interests of society as a whole seer. You'd support a mandatory life sentence, so whats your point?

But Jim, generally liberals would not support mandatory sentences, and as my link said it was the liberals in my state who were releasing violent felons early only to go out again and rape and murder. That is a fact James.

[RumTumTugger]

That you need a source cited in order to recognize spewers of propaganda explains why you are so susceptible to it.

Translation: I'd better accuse my opponent of my failing so as to try and hide the fact it is me who is susceptible to spewers of leftest propaganda and lies.

Sorry JimL, the conservatives leave the creating of propaganda machines to the leftest who have created 3 of them so far MSM, Hollywood and college campuses so that they could make their communistic anti family, anti America and the ideals it was built on palatable. Did I forget to mention the don't like the Constitution either since they coined the oxymornic phrase "living document" to describe their pretense that a document changes its meaning when the language changes the meaning of words. So they could pretend free speech is only for them not for those they disagree with freedom of religion means freedom to force people to go against their sincere beliefs or lose their livelyhoods.

JimL, leftest liberals like you, tass and starlight have the corner on listening to the true spewers of propaganda and you can have them I will keep fact checking all of them and you.

[Sparko]

Yeah, I can, these conservatives here on tweb, not all of them, but the obvious ones stand out, don't know what there talking about. They are easily led by crackpot talking heads and just repeat what they hear.

"What there talking about?"

Jiml if you are going to try trash talking, at least learn how to use grammar correctly.

[Sparko]

Enforcement of gun control laws.

For instance take a look at background checks.

Since firearms dealers ask perspective buyers about prior convictions and the like even before they give them ATF Form 4473 to fill out (which starts the FBI check) and because the vast majority of those applicants who don't pass are rejected because of a prior criminal conviction, restraining order, are fugitives and the like, this actually qualifies as a federal crime -- a felony -- of submitting false information.

But, in one recent year of the approximately 80,000 people who were turned down as a result of a background check only 44 people were prosecuted. 44 out of 80,000.

In the first two years after the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was first set up the Justice Department Inspector General discovered that only 154 people out of 120,000 denials were prosecuted.

Why isn't the government enforcing the laws already on the books rather than wanting new ones? Now, I'm sure a significant portion of those who are rejected didn't realize that they were violating the law (perhaps they didn't realize that their conviction was for a felony or that it happened so long ago that they "forgot") but that can hardly account for such a low prosecution rate.

One explanation was provided by Vice President Joe Biden when he was asked about this in 2013 while talking to representatives from the National Rifle Association during a White House gun violence task force meeting. According to Jim Baker, the NRA's Director of Federal Affairs Biden responded, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

And it appears that, according to Justice Department data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (widely regarded as one of the best researchers on federal prosecution performances and trends), federal prosecutions of firearm violations in general dropped substantially during the Obama Administration^[1]. This was verified by a study conducted by the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys which found that there has been a 25% drop in the number of prosecutions of firearm violation cases by the Justice Department recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) than the Bush Administration did.

Another study found that despite all his tough talk prosecutions dropped over 42% during Obama's Administration from what it was under George W. Bush.










1. A similar thing happened during the Clinton Administration. After working so hard to pass the Brady Law and the the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (which prohibited firearms based on their appearance rather than functionality) in 1993 and 1994 respectively of the 23,000 cases that had been referred for prosecution by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives only arrested 56 people. One of Janet Reno's top aides even testified that they weren't all that interested in such prosecutions (enforcing the laws just passed). They appeared more interested in passing even more laws (which they would likely not enforce either).

There are two reasons for this wanting more laws but having less enforcement.

1. They are just putting on a show, showing their constituents that they "care" and are "doing something" about the gun threat. But they don't care about prosecuting because it is too much trouble and they don't really care.

2. They are more interested in taking away ALL guns, and not letting anyone have one in the first place, than they are in making sure that only law abiding citizens have them and keeping them out of the criminal's hands. After all, the more criminals that get them, the more crime, and the more fodder they have for calling out for a full out ban. They want gun crimes so they can use it as a club.