27 Christians Murdered In Texas Church...

[Sparko]

I don't really understand what you mean by this. How are gun control people solely responsible for the enforcement of laws? And what makes you think that they're not interested in gun law enforcement?

I mean they don't push for stricter enforcement, or do any follow up. In fact they seem to totally ignore the current laws and scream about every new shooting as if there ARE no gun control laws and we need them now to prevent this sort of thing!

They also know that they are unlikely to get anything new passed because of the Constitution, but at least they can tell their constituents how hard the tried and the Republicans don't care about their safety. It's all optics.

[Adrift]

I mean they don't push for stricter enforcement, or do any follow up.

Are you 100% certain of that? And if you are, how do you feel they should best go about doing that?

In fact they seem to totally ignore the current laws and scream about every new shooting as if there ARE no gun control laws and we need them now to prevent this sort of thing!

That hasn't been my observation. My observation is that they're glad for the current laws, but also think there should be stricter laws, because, apparently, the laws on the books aren't doing a very thorough job. People who make laws aren't responsible for enforcing them. That's a different legislative branch. Perhaps if the executive branch were doing their job, the legislative branch wouldn't feel that making new laws was necessary. But what if the executive branch is doing their job (as well as they're able to at least), and it's still not enough? What would you suggest gun control advocates do in order that the laws on the book are better enforced by both gun control advocates and gun uncontrolled(?) advocates?

They also know that they are unlikely to get anything new passed because of the Constitution, but at least they can tell their constituents how hard the tried and the Republicans don't care about their safety. It's all optics.

No, I don't believe that. I think they really, and sincerely do think they can get new laws passed that aren't obstructed by the Constitution, or that reads the Constitution in a different light. I don't believe that it's all just to make people feel good. There are plenty of people out there who truly do think that gun control will make a change. It's not all optics. In fact, on a topic like this where real people are really dying by the dozens, people really do care about that sort of thing. It really does make people feel uneasy, frustrated and angry. Even politicians. Politicians are people too.

[seer]

I don't really understand what you mean by this. How are gun control people solely responsible for the enforcement of laws? And what makes you think that they're not interested in gun law enforcement?

Show me one liberal who supports a mandatory five year sentence for a felony committed with a firearm? They won't because they know that will fall mostly on blacks and latinos, but this is exactly where the laws should be enforced.

Oh come on. That's ridiculous.

No it is not:

ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/documen...n-regulations/

[rogue06]

The fact is that during the Clinton and Obama Administrations there was a sharp drop in enforcement of the current laws all the while they screamed for new laws being enacted. If they want to show they are serious they could start with strictly enforcing the laws already on the books.

[Sparko]

Are you 100% certain of that? And if you are, how do you feel they should best go about doing that?

100% sure? I said I was being CYNICAL!

sheesh.

[Adrift]

Show me one liberal who supports a mandatory five year sentence for a felony committed with a firearm?

Just one? Okay, Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, LaTonya Johnson who led a bill in the Assembly in 2015 that would create a mandatory minimum prison sentence of three years for anyone caught with an illegal gun within five years of that person's imprisonment for a felony or "violent misdemeanor." If that illegal gun was used in the commission of another violent offense, the bill adds an additional mandatory five years to the sentence. http://archive.jsonline.com/news/opi...38110901.html/

They won't because they know that will fall mostly on blacks and latinos, but this is exactly where the laws should be enforced.

Or they believe that there is no evidence that a mandatory five year sentence reduces gun crime, regardless of race.

No it is not:

I'm confused. You believe that the ATF is a faction of gun control advocacy proponents? This had absolutely nothing to do with gun control, or some secret conspiracy by mustache twirling politicians to see more murders in American streets so that they could get reelected. It was purely intended as a measure to catch drug kingpins in Mexico.

[Adrift]

The fact is that during the Clinton and Obama Administrations there was a sharp drop in enforcement of the current laws all the while they screamed for new laws being enacted. If they want to show they are serious they could start with strictly enforcing the laws already on the books.

Why can't the Trump administration enforce the laws already on the book to get them to shut up? Seems like a simple solution if that's truly the solution that's supposed to work.

[Mountain Man]

Why can't the Trump administration enforce the laws already on the book to get them to shut up? Seems like a simple solution if that's truly the solution that's supposed to work.

Because liberals won't be happy unless the the 2nd Amendment is repealed and private gun ownership is banned.

[Adrift]

100% sure? I said I was being CYNICAL!

sheesh.

No, you said you were being cynical about the idea that gun control advocates want more gun violence to occur so that they can push their "agenda". What I asked you if you're 100% sure about is this idea that gun control advocates don't want stricter enforcement, and won't follow up. I then asked, what should they do in practice to accomplish these things.

[rogue06]

Why can't the Trump administration enforce the laws already on the book to get them to shut up? Seems like a simple solution if that's truly the solution that's supposed to work.

I haven't seen any statistics on enforcement under the Trump Administration yet (perhaps because it has been in place less than a year) but enforcing the laws already in place does not seem to be what the anti-2A crowd is interested in given the fact that when they are in power enforcement takes a steep drop.

[Adrift]

Because liberals won't be happy unless the the 2nd Amendment is repealed and private gun ownership is banned.

What does that have to do with anything? A "liberal" desiring a repeal of the 2nd Amendment shouldn't stop the executive branch from doing their job. And that's not likely true of most liberals anyways.

[Adrift]

I haven't seen any statistics on enforcement under the Trump Administration yet (perhaps because it has been in place less than a year) but enforcing the laws already in place does not seem to be what the anti-2A crowd is interested in given the fact that when they are in power enforcement takes a steep drop.

I mean, so what? Are they in power now? If not, then what's preventing enforcers from enforcing, and shutting up their critics by showing results?

[Sparko]

No, you said you were being cynical about the idea that politicians want more gun violence to occur so that they can push their "agenda". What I asked you if you're 100% sure about is this idea that gun control advocates don't want stricter enforcement, and won't follow up. I then asked, what should they do in practice to accomplish these things.

How about actually calling out the fact that if the laws were enforced that this would not have happened instead of calling for "something has to be done" and "we need to ban guns"? How about lauding the fact that a man with a legal gun helped to stop this guy with an illegal gun and saying that legal gun ownership saves lives?

They don't follow up or support the gun laws we have. In most cases of these things, the criminal has an illegal gun and IF the gun laws already passed were enforced it could have stopped him. But they never mention that.

And yes, I am being cynical. Because I see politicians using tragedy to push agendas. On both sides. Republicans were just using the murders in New York to hawk stricter immigration. same thing different side.

[seer]

Just one? Okay, Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, LaTonya Johnson...

Yeah, you found one! BTW - did the bill pass?

Or they believe that there is no evidence that a mandatory five year sentence reduces gun crime, regardless of race.

From your link:

However, the bill has run up against opposition from those who believe the prisons are already overcrowded with African-American males, many of whom would see longer sentences under the new law. (I mentioned this as a possible byproduct of tougher penalties in a column last April.) And, of course, the term "mandatory minimum" has become a shibboleth for those who believe tougher sentences adversely affect the African-American communities in large cities.

I'm confused. You believe that the ATF is a faction of gun control advocacy proponents? This had absolutely nothing to do with gun control, or some secret conspiracy by mustache twirling politicians to see more murders in American streets so that they could get reelected. It was purely intended as a measure to catch drug kingpins in Mexico.

Did you even read the link? ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations.
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

On the same note:

Furthermore, the operation may have had an explicitly political angle. E-mails obtained by CBS News in late 2011 showed ATF officials corresponding about the possibility of using Fast and Furious to push through a regulation requiring gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” In other words, the ATF permitted certain gun shops to conduct certain, inadvisable sales to dangerous people and then planned to point to those sales to justify the need for new reporting requirements.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-first-scandal

[rogue06]

Just one? Okay, Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, LaTonya Johnson who led a bill in the Assembly in 2015 that would create a mandatory minimum prison sentence of three years for anyone caught with an illegal gun within five years of that person's imprisonment for a felony or "violent misdemeanor." If that illegal gun was used in the commission of another violent offense, the bill adds an additional mandatory five years to the sentence. http://archive.jsonline.com/news/opi...38110901.html/

I believe that is already the case for anyone committing a federal crime.

Source: Federal Firearms Laws: Prohibitions, Sentencing & Punishment, Other Consequences (18 U.S.C. §§ 921 to 931)

Firearms Involved in Federal Crimes of Violence or Drug Trafficking

Federal sentencing guidelines authorize mandatory minimum sentencing when a firearm or certain ammunition is involved in relation to or in furtherance of a federal crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. (18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)). These mandatory minimum sentences are as follows:

• Five years for carrying or possessing a firearm;
• Seven years for brandishing a firearm;
• 10 years if the firearm is discharged;
• 10 years for possession of a sawed-off rifle or shotgun or semiautomatic assault weapon;
• 15 years for possession of armor piercing ammunition;
• 30 years for possession of a machine gun, a destructive devise, or if the firearm was equipped with a silencer.

Mandatory minimum sentencing as described above must be served in addition to and consecutive to any sentence imposed upon conviction for the underlying violent or drug trafficking crime.

Source

© Copyright Original Source