Unless I do harm, leave me and my gun(s) alone...

[Sgt.K]

<RANT>
Unless specified, I mean everything as it relates to “law-abiding, normal people” (e.g. not convicted violent felons or those adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill, etc).

Laws (should) exist so we the people can specify what damages or insults to people or property are not acceptable, and laying out what punishment(s) will befall those who violate these laws. If I take or damage something of yours then I should be required to replace it or compensate you for it, and should be punished sufficiently to convince me to not do it again. Same if I injure or kill someone (without cause). I believe it’s reasonable that I be required to cover all expenses – immediate and long-term – inflicted upon the victim and/or their survivors, and should be punished sufficiently to convince me to not do it again. Generally, if harm is caused then restitution should be made. Yes, there will be accidents, and there should be a way of dealing with the outcome in those cases, but the point in my mind basically is ‘no harm, no foul’.

Why, then, do we have laws against ownership or possession of anything? Let’s say for the sake of conversation that I have a couple thousand rounds of ammo in my house. It just sits there. It causes no harm to anyone. It does not destroy anything or put holes in anybody. It’s nobody’s business that I have it, how much I have of it, or what I do with it – right up until the moment I use it to cause harm, at which time all of the (few, simple) punitive laws should come into play. Whose business is it (other than my wife and/or my accountant) if I feel like mounting a Ma-Deuce on my back porch, unless I decide to shoot someone with it? The only reason *I* would ever shoot someone is in self-defense, as I am not the criminal type, so the big hunk of metal I use to decorate my back yard is really none of anybody’s business.

How about this, for example:
If someone commits a robbery, they do 5 years. If they use a gun (real or not) to facilitate the robbery (i.e. threaten), they do another 5 years – mandatory, added on the end of the robbery sentence. If they are eligible for parole after 3 of the 5 years for the robbery, and the parole board grants the parole at 3 years, then they still have to do the mandatory 5 more for the gun before they get out. If they actually shoot at someone during the robbery, that’s another 10 extra mandatory years – 5 for the robbery, 5 for using the gun, 10 for shooting. If they hit someone, add 20 more – for each person hit – mandatory. For each one of those that dies, add *another* 30-40 mandatory. When the mandatory years for using a gun while committing another crime will have the person in prison beyond the highest known human lifespan, fry ‘em at the end of the standard part of their sentence (gives them a chance to appeal the original sentencing).

No penalties for having or carrying the gun, as it should be. But, if it’s used for crime, hang ‘em. Is it a perfect concept? No, but it’s a hell of a lot better than what’s being shoveled on our heads now.
</RANT>

[newman attack]

What about wrongful convictions?

Zimmerman was tried solely on political pressure and not evidence. Would you or I be so lucky to get an acquittal?


Posted from Pafoa.org App for Android

[90volts]

In the aforementioned world all the present politicians would already be in jail and good people serving in their places so that's not an issue.

I just went through court proceedings , for my dad's divorce ( he was incapacitated part of the way through it), and I could not believe the lack of common sense involved. For example, he passed away, yet the divorce went on for another ten months. Wth? It put an additional $15k or so in lawyers pockets though.

So can we all move to our own island and implement common sense rules? Sounds good to me.

[hog45]

Why, then, do we have laws against ownership or possession of anything? Let’s say for the sake of conversation that I have a couple thousand rounds of ammo in my house. It just sits there. It causes no harm to anyone. It does not destroy anything or put holes in anybody. It’s nobody’s business that I have it, how much I have of it, or what I do with it – right up until the moment I use it to cause harm, at which time all of the (few, simple) punitive laws should come into play. Whose business is it (other than my wife and/or my accountant) if I feel like mounting a Ma-Deuce on my back porch, unless I decide to shoot someone with it? The only reason *I* would ever shoot someone is in self-defense, as I am not the criminal type, so the big hunk of metal I use to decorate my back yard is really none of anybody’s business.

...
But why would anybody NEED a thousand rounds and a Ma Deuce? Obviously you are already guilty of thoughtcrime.

Ignorance is strength, get with the program Sgt. K, and stop violating MY right Right To Complacent Happiness, Rainbows, and Unicorns.

[harty]

<RANT>
Unless specified, I mean everything as it relates to “law-abiding, normal people” (e.g. not convicted violent felons or those adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill, etc).

Laws (should) exist so we the people can specify what damages or insults to people or property are not acceptable, and laying out what punishment(s) will befall those who violate these laws. If I take or damage something of yours then I should be required to replace it or compensate you for it, and should be punished sufficiently to convince me to not do it again. Same if I injure or kill someone (without cause). I believe it’s reasonable that I be required to cover all expenses – immediate and long-term – inflicted upon the victim and/or their survivors, and should be punished sufficiently to convince me to not do it again. Generally, if harm is caused then restitution should be made. Yes, there will be accidents, and there should be a way of dealing with the outcome in those cases, but the point in my mind basically is ‘no harm, no foul’.

Why, then, do we have laws against ownership or possession of anything? Let’s say for the sake of conversation that I have a couple thousand rounds of ammo in my house. It just sits there. It causes no harm to anyone. It does not destroy anything or put holes in anybody. It’s nobody’s business that I have it, how much I have of it, or what I do with it – right up until the moment I use it to cause harm, at which time all of the (few, simple) punitive laws should come into play. Whose business is it (other than my wife and/or my accountant) if I feel like mounting a Ma-Deuce on my back porch, unless I decide to shoot someone with it? The only reason *I* would ever shoot someone is in self-defense, as I am not the criminal type, so the big hunk of metal I use to decorate my back yard is really none of anybody’s business.

How about this, for example:
If someone commits a robbery, they do 5 years. If they use a gun (real or not) to facilitate the robbery (i.e. threaten), they do another 5 years – mandatory, added on the end of the robbery sentence. If they are eligible for parole after 3 of the 5 years for the robbery, and the parole board grants the parole at 3 years, then they still have to do the mandatory 5 more for the gun before they get out. If they actually shoot at someone during the robbery, that’s another 10 extra mandatory years – 5 for the robbery, 5 for using the gun, 10 for shooting. If they hit someone, add 20 more – for each person hit – mandatory. For each one of those that dies, add *another* 30-40 mandatory. When the mandatory years for using a gun while committing another crime will have the person in prison beyond the highest known human lifespan, fry ‘em at the end of the standard part of their sentence (gives them a chance to appeal the original sentencing).

No penalties for having or carrying the gun, as it should be. But, if it’s used for crime, hang ‘em. Is it a perfect concept? No, but it’s a hell of a lot better than what’s being shoveled on our heads now.
</RANT>

See there is one major flaw in what you say, you would actually be punishing the the criminal who commits the crime and not the law abiding citizen. That just makes too much sense.

[dosequis]

The trouble with that rant is - who gets to make the laws? Who gets to define a felony? Who gets to determine what constitutes mentally insane?

[Sgt.K]

The trouble with that rant is - who gets to make the laws? Who gets to define a felony? Who gets to determine what constitutes mentally insane?

I said it wasn't perfect...

[qmcorps]

[QUOTE=hog45;2665968]...
But why would anybody NEED a thousand rounds and a Ma Deuce?

They are damn fun to shoot!

Do I tell you what vibrator to use?

[MikeB0]

...
But why would anybody NEED a thousand rounds and a Ma Deuce? ...

Zombies obviously.

Why would anybody not need a thousand rounds and a Ma Duece? It sounds like a fun 10 mins or so to me!

I own firearms with giggle switches, but no .50bmg ones yet. Need has never been a concern, fun is.

[Carnes]

I said it wasn't perfect...

Nothing's perfect. (I'm not prepared to defend that statement at this time) You have the right idea, as did the founders of the nation that suggested similar concepts. Unfortunately, the current two parties don't seem to be interested in what we are looking for.

I recently suggested that our nation could use a mechanism to prevent people from voting themselves money from the treasury. For similar reasons, it might be good to prevent people from voting themselves 'security.' The public's constant begging for more security is the cause of the nanny state. However, dealing with voting for security is a tougher nut to crack than voting for money, and we haven't figured out the money thing yet.

You'd think there would be more 'smart' people from MIT and Harvard sorting these things out...