Senate to vote Monday on four gun control bills


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Call your senator! The Senate will take up four gun control bills on Monday, all useless in preventing the Orlando mass killing but all very useful in denying innocent Americans their second amendment rights.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., authored the terror watch list measure. It would allow federal investigators to block gun purchases by people who they are scrutinizing for possible links to terrorism. The Senate will also vote on an alternative to Feinstein, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, that would put in place a three-day delay for gun purchases by people on the terror watch list. Cornyn’s bill would require the federal government to prove in court that the purchaser should not own a weapon.

A third measure, sponsored by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., would require background checks at gun shows. Senators will also consider legislation sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, that aims to increase prosecutions of people who try to illegally purchase guns, and ensure those will mental illness can’t buy them.

The first and second are blatantly unconstitutional. The third is bull because background checks are already required at gun shows. And the third is both unconstitutional as well as an empty gesture accomplishing nothing. All four would have done nothing to prevent the Orlando murders, since the madman there had followed the law very carefully, was screened heavily, and was not even on a terrorist watch list.

And once again, the useless Republican quislings in Congress, instead of standing up for our rights, offer incremental compromises that serve to squelch our freedoms only a little. No wonder the pubic wants an outsider for President.

Speaking of outsiders, below the fold is Ted Cruz’s response today in Congress to the Democratic fascist push to deny us our right to keep and bear arms. No compromise on freedom from him.

29 comments

  • m d mill

    I have a thought:
    An expressed intention to commit a violent felony, should itself be a crime, and
    an expressed desire to commit a violent felony should be grounds for a mild form of civil commitment…
    both of which, IF FIRST PROVEN IN COURT, would be grounds to constitutionally prevent the sale of a lethal weapon to that individual.
    I stridently support the constitution, and all its amendments, and consider my self a free market libertarian.
    Would the above approach really interfere with a civil sane persons constitutional rights?
    Even currently, civil commitment for violent tendencies is constitutional, and felons have no constitutional right to buy lethal weapons.

    Is this not a brilliantly conceived compromise, that gives everyone what they want?

  • wayne

    m d mill:
    “An expressed intention to commit a violent felony…”
    (You are on to something but it’ already been taken care of in our Laws. And as Mr. Z summarized, pretty much anything beyond our current laws is just pandering & unconstitutional.)

    >It’s already a crime; most commonly encountered in “assault & battery,” which is a combination of 1)stating you will do violence & then 2)doing it, to someone.

    On the level you are discussing (felony)– most often encountered in vanilla Conspiracy case’s.
    >example; plotting with someone, to rob a bank, is conspiracy to commit bank robbery.
    >encouraging a Riot, is incitement to riot. (and if you cross State lines to incite a riot, it’s a Federal crime as well.)
    >plotting, scheming, conspiring, to commit terrorist-acts, is all illegal.
    Charges of such, immediately prevent people from lawfully obtaining weapons. When proven in court the situation is over & no need to layer-up more stuff in our Judicial system.

  • m d mill

    It is sometimes very difficult to prove a specific plan for felony has been hatched.
    But sometimes such persons much earlier communicate their desire (and sometimes even their intent) to commit extreme violence (e.g. murder or bombing) in the abstract case, without a specific target, or time, in the pursuit of some goal. I think my specific language (very carefully chosen) is perhaps more effective than current law, and completely constitutional…but admittedly i am not a lawyer or well versed in the law, thankfully.

  • wayne

    m d mill:
    Yes, it is difficult to prove conspiracy, as it should be.
    In the current environment— the FBI can’t catch these people, because they DON’T WANT TO, not because our Laws are insufficient to do so.
    There is no need to contort our system into something it isn’t.

    Abstract is abstract— we have the 1st Amendment for a reason. “Conspiracy” is a concrete Act. The goal is to throw these people in prison for actual crimes. If they are actually guilty of the underlying offense, they forfeit the right to own weapons.
    No need to add a layer to the Judicial system that is not required.

    You have an inherent right to own a gun, unless & until you have been adjudicated in a court of law, as someone who shouldn’t have a gun.

  • wayne

    m d mill:
    –referencing “civil commitment.” (I’m not a lawyer, but I have been involved in dozens of involuntary commitments.)

    Essentially, with involuntary commitments— You file a petition with the Court, stating under Oath the reasons you believe someone should be examined.

    You need real, concrete examples of “crazy” behavior or statements, or it will be tossed at that point.
    If the petition is granted, that Order is turned over to the Police and they can then take someone into custody. (They will be taken to a locked facility– generally a hospital– for Psychiatric examination.)
    Concurrently– the individual in question also has a right to a Lawyer & to demand-a-hearing, and that must occur no later than 72 hours after being taken into custody.

    In most States, someone can be held a maximum of 72 hours, while they are examined. The hearing will be held as soon as possible after a Dr. has examined the person.
    (best time, strategically, to do this: late Friday afternoon, on a 3 day weekend.)
    -The onerous is on the petitioner to prove to the Courts satisfaction, that someone is “actively mentally ill.”
    State Hospitals & private Psychiatric Hospitals, always have a Hearing-room handy & a Judge is specifically assigned to hear Cases, at the Hospital.
    People must demonstrate a clear danger-to-themselves, or a danger-to-others. If that can not be demonstrated clearly to the Court, the person is cut lose.
    –Everyone involved must sign-off on everything

    If the Court determines a person is “in need of treatment,” but they are not cooperative, a Judge can order a short-term forced hospitalization (7 days) & forced medication.

    At that point–the person would be considered to have been “adjudicated a person with a mental illness,” and they would not be allowed to purchase weapons. Their freedom of movement, however, can not be restricted while they are cooperating with Treatment.

  • wayne

    I should add as well;
    In most, but not all State’s, there is also a “duty to worn,” as it relates to potentially mentally ill folks.
    If an “intended victim” can be identified, it is the responsibility of the mental-health worker on hand, to contact the person who might be at risk and warn them.
    If that is triggered, it’s almost certain there are enough statements/actions in-play to petition the Court and have someone picked-up for a psychiatric exam.

  • wayne

    that should be– “duty to warn”

  • m d mill

    I think you just don’t get it.

    My proposition is simple direct and clear.
    It does not require paragraphs of explanation. It is not (apparently) the same as current law.
    It is not “civil commitment” as currently defined. I don’t want to use “mental illness” current legal guide lines.
    It reduces the ability of dangerously violent people from easily buying guns, not relying on bureaucratic whims, but fixed, well defined, reasonable, practical, constitutional law. Sane civil people need not worry about their gun rights at all.
    And if something along these lines is not acceptable to the NRA or others, we will be getting laws much more severe in the near future.

    I repeat:

    An expressed intention to commit a violent felony, should itself be a crime, and
    an expressed desire to commit a violent felony should be grounds for a mild form of civil commitment…
    both of which, IF FIRST PROVEN IN COURT, would be grounds to constitutionally prevent the sale of a lethal weapon to that individual.

    P.S Something along these lines would also help many abused women who can get no help from the LAW if their husbands or boyfriends don’t do some specific violence.

  • wayne

    m d mill:

    Sorry dude, I guess I don’t get your idea. I don’t think you understand your own idea either.
    (I have sent dozens of people to mental hospitals against their will & with legal force. It’s not something done lightly, and all of those people lost their rights to buy guns.)

    If you want to disregard existing conspiracy & commitment laws, at a minimum your proposal is redundant to all our other well established laws and procedures, & at worst it is blatantly unconstitutional.

  • m d mill

    You are correct, you don’t get it, IMO.
    I don’t want to send people to mental hospitals, or get any medical opinions involved ,ie,
    not commitment in the usual sense, but similar in motivation, and thus constitutional.
    And conspiracy laws must involve a specific target ,no?
    If you say “I plan to murder people”, but with no plan or no people specified…no legal conspiracy law broken?…or am i wrong about that? But the person should not have a gun.
    If you say “I desire to murder people, for religious reasons, or because society has wronged me”…probably hard to get a a conventional civil commitment (and a long expensive process as you describe), since the person may be completely sane. But the person should not have a gun.
    You say current law is adequate..I say current law (and lawyers) stifle quick efficient effective action in many cases because the “legal” hurdles are so high. I am lowering the bar in a way that will not effect sane civil people at all. And the “trial” can be quick(one day), if the evidence of simple statements (expressions) are available…after all we are not sending anyone to prison or a mental facility, simple removing there right to possess a weapon, for good reason.
    The public is becoming frustrated with clearly violent dangerous people easily getting weapons of mass murder. Current law seems inadequate And don’t say the FBI WANTS these people armed and on the street (then you sound like a conspiracy nut)….They know that current law ties their hands, and there is often nothing they can do THAT WILL HOLD UP IN COURT.
    But, if all you need to prove is “an expressed intention to commit a violent felony(no specific target or plan needed)…or an expressed desire to commit a violent felony(no specific target or plan needed)
    then “trial and conviction” is much simpler.

  • wayne

    m d mill:

    Without a specific target or plan, all you have is speech—and that’s protected by the 1st Amendment.
    That’s why we have conspiracy-laws & the “fighting words” doctrine.

    –Our Common-Law heritage dictates our laws. (and we are only one of a dozen Countries that employ Common-Law principles.)
    No need to throw them away for expediency or just to “do something, anything.”

    I empathize with your intentions, but they have already been addressed within our system & for the past 240 years. We don’t need to remake our Judicial system, we just need to follow it in the first place.
    It’s not our Laws that are at fault, it’s the people tasked with enforcing our laws, who refuse to enforce them.

  • wayne

    Last thought & then I’m done with this—

    History on the Orlando terrorist is coming out & I count an EASY 1/2 dozen occasions where this guy could have been petitioned for psychiatric-examination, and especially when he was a minor.
    If that had been done, this guy would never have been allowed to buy guns legally.
    As an adult– if the FBI had done their job, >same thing.

  • Cotour

    I agree with you 100 percent!

    Where is a family’s / wife’s / friends culpability, in fact responsibility in regards to anyone who is known to be unstable and a psycho / religious nut wild card?

    There are real world solutions to these problems and I would go so far as saying that while the liberals are also outraged at such depraved actions they are, and this is sick, happy that such things happen because they see it as being one step closer to repealing the second amendment. As sick as that sounds.

    This is where the means justifies the ends, pure, raw S.O.M.

  • wayne

    Cotour:
    Yeah– pretty much agree with your thoughts on this.
    The father is apparently a piece-of-work himself. I’d like to know HOW they were allowed into this Country.
    As for family/friends culpability– that gets into a murky realm but the Wife is likely guilty of something
    But, the whole family should have been surveilled by the NSA and there appears to have been enough probable-cause if they took it to a FISA court.

    My only point for m d mill, is what he describes is already illegal & doesn’t require any additional laws or procedures.

  • Edward

    m d mill wrote: “The public is becoming frustrated with clearly violent dangerous people easily getting weapons of mass murder.”

    I think what is frustrating the public is that violent dangerous people are *using* everyday objects to commit mass murder.

    Shortly after 9/11, a Muslim from Fremont, California, used his car to run over 15 pedestrians in and around San Francisco; should we have similar laws for assault-car control? Airplanes were used for 9/11; should we have similar laws for assault-airplane control? Knives, axes, hatchets, and machetes have all been used in terror attacks; should we have similar laws to control those assault-weapons?

    There was no outcry that the attackers of Pamela Geller’s Mohamed Cartoon Contest had weapons, because they did not get enough opportunity to actually commit any murder. They were stopped too soon by an armed defender. The news about the incident was almost non-existent. The outcry about the availability of weapons was actually non-existent.

    We don’t get frustrated by the availability, we get frustrated that they are not available enough to stop the mass murder before it starts. The frustration is that the armed police are unable to do enough, most of the time, because when seconds count, they are only minutes away (15 minutes, 25 minutes, sometimes more; that allows for a lot of machete use).

    The pseudo solution being to disarm all the law abiding people and leave them at the mercy of all the armed terrorists, like they did in France.

    France, where the unarmed police officer was the first to be murdered at the Charlie Hebdo fiasco. In fact, there were a large number of terror attacks in France last year alone:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2015_%C3%8Ele-de-France_attacks

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Quentin-Fallavier_attack

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack
    (Look how many unarmed people it took to stop this attack. These defenders had a lot going for them: tight space kept the terrorist immobile, two defenders were military-trained and led the defense, and five additional people who were willing to follow their lead and be defenders and overwhelm the terrorist.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

    Terrorist attacks in gun-free France are getting more frequent:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_France

    Geller wisely hired police to be on the scene, so they were able to do their jobs right away. Thankfully she did not choose San Jose for the venue, as those hosers appear to be worse than useless:
    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/san-jose-police-herded-trump-supporters-into-mob/

  • wayne

    Edward:
    Well stated!

  • m d mill

    In an interview with ABC News’ “This Week,” the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said…

    McCaul said his committee would be looking at “what is our capability when someone posts a public social media posting that says that they’re going to conduct attacks[non-specific!] on the United States, on behalf of the Islamic State.”
    “Why can’t we pick up that information and then stop that act of terror?” he asked.

    …because wayne and edward and cotour say you may not….first amendment…fighting words …200 year tradition……the system cannot be improved…things are just fine…damned FBI…

    I wrote:
    “The public is becoming frustrated with clearly violent dangerous people easily getting (and using of course) weapons of mass murder. Current law seems inadequate .And don’t say the FBI WANTS these people armed and on the street (then you sound like a conspiracy nut)….They know that current law ties their hands, and there is often nothing they can do THAT WILL HOLD UP IN COURT.
    But, if all you need to prove is “an expressed intention to commit a violent felony(no specific target or plan needed)…or an expressed desire to commit a violent felony(no specific target or plan needed)
    then “trial(or hearing?) and conviction(or pseudo/quasi-commitment in the public interest)” is much simpler.”

    You may think i am a strict gun control advocate…i am not. I believe in the second amendment, liberal carry permits, and self protection. There are many good ideas. And I appreciate your resistance–it forces me to make a good case, and clarify my arguments(even in my own mind). But some people should not have an AR-15, don’t you think?

    “You say current law is adequate..I say current law (and lawyers) stifle quick efficient effective action in many cases because the “legal” hurdles are so high. I am lowering the bar in a way that will not effect sane civil people at all. And the “trial(hearing?)” can be quick(one day), if the evidence of simple statements (expressions) are available…after all, I am not proposing sending anyone to prison or a mental facility [or restricting them from walking on the beach or having a pizza or making love or having a family or having a great life], simply removing their right to possess a weapon specifically designed for mass killing, for a good reason.”
    This really offends you? This really threatens you?

    McCaul said his committee would be looking at “what is our capability when someone posts a public social media posting that says that they’re going to conduct attacks[non-specific!] on the United States, on behalf of the Islamic State.”
    “Why can’t we pick up that information and then stop that act of terror?” he asked.

  • m d mill

    P.S.
    …Further it seems conspiracy MUST involve two or more people
    and according to Wikipedia:
    “Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy, not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime.”
    [I should have realized this much earlier in the conversation!..mea culpa]
    Thus you can see the possible difficulty of using current conspiracy laws when only one person is involved and no actual crime has been committed. My proposal is not simply duplicating or complicating current law, but attempts to correct some severe limitations.

  • wayne

    m d mill:
    I empathize with your intentions.
    My only point is; our current legal system is already well equipped to deal with the exact situations you describe.
    The failure is a result of the people currently in charge, not any inherent fault in the underlying principles, methodologies, or protocols.
    We’ve been doing this for 240 years— there is literally no “new” procedure you could invent in 2016 that would accomplish your stated goal, without undermining our Constitution and our historic way of life.

    As for AR-15’s; if someone breaks into my house, I’m going to shoot them dead with my deer-rifle and not my AR. (everybody here, does realize, that “AR” stands for ArmaLite and not “assault-rife?”)

    AR’s are just menacing-looking .22 rifles, if you want to physically knock-down, stop, and kill a rapist, burglar, or terrorist, you use a larger caliber bullet. The AR caliber will kill you, but for shear stopping power, use something larger. Nothing is more dangerous than a criminal that has been shot, but is not yet dead.

    Orlando terrorist did not use an AR. No AR’s are “automatic,” and villifying them only causes people to buy them more. (I wouldn’t own one myself, except the Statist’s don’t want me to have one, so I bought one.)
    Orlando terrorist slipped through the system because of political-correctness, not because we don’t have enough laws already on the books. Nobody wanted to hold this clown responsible for his actions, because he was a muslim, and look what happened.

  • Edward

    ““Why can’t we pick up that information and then stop that act of terror?” he asked. …because wayne and edward and cotour say you may not….”

    I don’t recall any of the three of us saying any such thing. Indeed, I believe that our arguments have been that information should be used to prevent acts of terror.

    Can you please point to comments that any of us made that support your statement?

    What *has* been said is that rights may not be abridged without due process. Your idea seems to abridge rights without due process by summarily assuming guilt and imprisoning someone for saying “I’ll kill you” in a moment of emotion.

    I do not think that it is fair of you to change your words after the fact. You did not say “(and using of course)”. The difference is key. The difference is that proposed laws, including your idea, would affect the law abiding more than it does the law breaker. We know this because after so very many gun control laws have been put in place, we have more mass murder events occurring than before the law abiding were so dramatically disarmed. The law breakers continue to break the law. Are we surprised? Apparently Democrats are.

    Your idea is very French: guilt by accusation, then the accused has to prove himself innocent. It does not incorporate the “and using of course” portion of gun possession, in fact it does not bother with any aspect of having a weapon at all, it merely jails someone for expressing a desire — jail being the alternate detainment, since “It is not ‘civil commitment’ as currently defined. I don’t want to use ‘mental illness’ current legal guide lines,” and since “An expressed intention to commit a violent felony, should itself be a crime.”

    you wrote: “But some people should not have an AR-15, don’t you think?”

    Some people are already prohibited from having an AR-15 or any other firearm, and for very good reasons. You, however, wish to increase the range of people prohibited from having anything that could possibly be used as a weapon. To the point of jailing before due process.

    “I am lowering the bar in a way that will not effect sane civil people at all.”

    You may be surprised how many sane people are not at all times civil. Why should incivility be a crime? Do only uncivil people commit mass murder? Do all uncivil people commit mass murder?

    The problem with the FBI is that their boss has declared that they must give lots of benefit of doubt to those who follow the instructions of the Koran.

    You idea needlessly expands the number of criminals yet fails to solve the underlying problem of people following the instructions of the Koran.

    You wrote: “My proposal is not simply duplicating or complicating current law, but attempts to correct some severe limitations.”

    The severe limitations are in place because the American colonies had discovered that without these limitations government abuses people badly. We get abused enough with these limitations in place. It would be terrible if we were to eliminate them, giving up what little we have left of our liberty.

    We already have learned from the French — and from previous gun-control laws — that giving up liberty does not gain safety.

  • Edward

    m d mill,

    At best your idea only stops those who brag in advance of what they are about to do. Plenty of “quiet neighbors” suddenly and without warning wreak havoc. They may even fly airplanes into buildings.

    Here is why your idea is so stifling:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wQp0Ir5Vc#t=191
    “This is the difference between the rest of the English speaking world and the United States is there’s a Constitutional absolute right to free expression, but that’s of limited value in a litigious society where people can tie you up in court for five to ten years.”

    If you lose the spirit of vigorous public discourse then we have lost the spirit of the country.

    What constitutes language that is worthy of imprisonment. I am sure that Wayne has made comments that would fit that bill.

    What about “climate deniers”? There are those who already want to imprison or assassinate those unbelievers.
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/170948/progressive-professor-demands-death-penalty-global-daniel-greenfield
    Are the climate deniers to be imprisoned or only those who think they should be killed?

    What about the titles of plays or books?
    http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/govt-funded-play-kill-climate-deniers/#!

    What about legislators who disagree with journalists?
    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/journalist-demands-murder-of-legislators-who-disagree-with-him/
    Should the legislators be jailed for disagreeing with the journalist or the journalist be jailed for wanting the legislators dead?

    Your idea sounds a lot like the idea for preventing rapes, not by castrating the rapist but by castrating all his neighbors.

  • m d mill

    If another says they intend or desire to do murder , and the society responds by not allowing them to legally posses a weapon designed for mass killing (no imprisonment, no institutionalization required), I don’t feel my rights are unduly threatened, and i think the enhancement to law enforcement efforts(and the lives of the innocent) would be immense.
    [And current law does NOT allow implementation of this proposal! [see U.S. conspiracy law definitions, as discussed previously]]
    You all apparently feel differently. I think our differences can perhaps be stated that simply.
    I will defend to the death your right to disagree with me, (but if you feel you want to murder me in response, I hope someone takes away your guns! :)
    But at this point I think we are talking past one another in a big way, so I will cease and desist at this point…for the time being.
    Thanks for the good debate…M. D. Mill

  • wayne

    Edward:
    -Great wordsmithing, once again!

    M D Mill:
    -Yes, good back-n-forth!
    -Did not get the impression you were anti-gun or anything like that. You sound genuinely concerned & have tried to defend your proposal quite well.
    -I’m being repetitive, but my only point is “we can handle all this without fundamentally changing things.” (and boy… have we had a lot of “fundamental transformation” the past 7 years.)

  • Kudos to all of you for actually having a reasonable discussion about this issue, without rancor, even though in the end it appears you could not come to an agreement. In the more sane U.S. that I was born into, this would be how the conversation would have gone, and would have likely resulted in no action in Congress.

    Sadly, that is not how the conversation goes today, because the left really does not appear to be interested in listening to any alternative points of view or even the most basic facts pertaining to the discussion. They know what they want, demand it, and will consider you the lowest form of evil if you disagree with them one iota.

  • Edward

    m d mill,
    You wrote: “I don’t feel my rights are unduly threatened.”

    Of course *you* don’t feel your rights are unduly threatened. Someone else lost *his* right for an unfortunate turn of phrase, or an opinion that the death penalty should apply to something. Even if that is not your intent of your new law, it could — and would — easily be misinterpreted into such an application; how would the person misinterpreting your law know that someone who favors death would not go out an do the thing himself. It may be rare that this happens, but it is also rare that there are mass shootings, as happened in Orlando.

    You wrote: “and i think the enhancement to law enforcement efforts(and the lives of the innocent) would be immense.”

    However, a better solution is the Second Ammendment solution, where we all are able to be armed in order to defend against mass murderers, as happened at Pamela Geller’s Mohamed Cartoon Contest. The lesson of France is that reducing the number of defenders only emboldens the attackers, even to the point of attacking on a train where a couple of Americans use their military training to tackle the attacker. The defenders must feel as empowered as the attacker feels, otherwise a huge crowd let the attackers mow down 130 people like a lawn.

    You wrote: “I will defend to the death your right to disagree with me.”

    And now you violate your own proposed law. See how easy that was? Now do you feel that your rights are unduly threatened?

    Robert,
    Thank you for the compliment. It is all due to your own policy and your enforcement of civil discourse on your site.

  • wayne

    Mark Levin is going over these 4 proposals, live on his Tuesday show, as only he can!
    http://www.marklevinshow.com
    (Agree with him or not, the man knows the Constitution, and he does a great Mitch McConnell imitation!)

  • m d mill

    Edward, et al.:
    Stating an opinion about the death penalty is not a violent felony, in any stretch.
    Protecting an innocent person (or their constitutional rights) with your OWN life (“to the death”) is also not a violent felony,in any stretch…and such accusations would all have to be brought by a prosecutor in the first place (who would understand the law) and then proven in a court or legal hearing beyond all reasonable doubt.

    This is not (with respect) a reasonable criticism in itself, so I HAD to respond. And if this miscarriage of justice were to rarely happen anyway (as they sometimes do–its not a perfect world), I would lose my right to posses a weapon(and not probably permanently)…an unfortunate but acceptable limitation in the real world since the possibility that I (or nearly any person) would simultaneously have the true need to use my weapon in defense is very,very minute. Perfection of any law or system is not a reasonable standard.
    But law enforcement efforts against those who are truly violently disposed would be enhanced greatly, I believe. After all, what would be the effect if anyone could buy a stick of dynamite “on demand”. That is to say, reducing availability and ease of procurement DOES greatly reduce illegal, dangerous usage by the truly violently disposed…even though alternate black market options are always available. And that’s why I support self defense and your “second amendment solution” also, in addition to, as I stated clearly earlier.
    However, if protection of the innocent would NOT be greatly enhanced by my proposal, then there is certainly no reason to implement it. That is the real question, which IS valid. But I think law enforcement agencies would agree with me without reservation. It would be interesting to find out.

  • Edward

    m d mill,
    you wrote: “Stating an opinion about the death penalty is not a violent felony, in any stretch. Protecting an innocent person (or their constitutional rights) with your OWN life (“to the death”) is also not a violent felony…”

    But you want to abridge rights of someone who just uses words of violence, long before they commit any act of violence.

    A more reasonable solution is not to reduce the number of people who have guns via your proposal but to eliminate the gun-free/defense-free zones.

    Like the no-fly list, your proposal becomes all too easy to abuse — miscarriages of justice in this list are not rare, they abound. There are over a million people on this list. Even Senator Ted Kennedy was on the no-fly list for six months.

    Once a right is lost, it becomes an onerous task to retrieve it. For Kennedy and his staff, with all their political clout, it took six months. It would have been much better had the list not existed, as it does not seem to have stopped any terrorists from committing acts of terror but has prevented innocent Americans from freely and conveniently travelling their country.

    All too often, we find that those in power abuse their power, and the US is no exception. As we eliminate our rights, we eliminate our ability to protect ourselves from this abuse. If you speak of deadly violence, then your own proposal makes you a criminal subject to “a mild form of civil commitment.” Your seemingly innocent comment can be easily misinterpreted and cause you to become a criminal. Just like those schoolkids who made gun-shapes with their fingers and Pop Tarts. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance.

    I do not seek perfection; I point out the dangers you have failed to see in Robert’s many posts of abuse of power and questions of “what could go wrong”.

  • Edward

    m d mill,
    I recommend that you watch the movie “The Minority Report.” It is about imprisoning people before they commit murder. The process is called “pre-crime.” The major difference between that movie and your proposal is that you want to turn free speech from a right into a crime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *