Friday, August 16, 2013
Dana Point California Negligent Discharge - Woman Hit - No Charges
What the hell is wrong with these people - no hard feelings, no criminal charges?
What happened to the onerous assault weapons ban in California, you know the one that infringes on everyone's right to own toys like an AR-15?
What happened to lawful gun owners being responsible? How totally ignorant do you have to be in order to be exchanging parts on a rifle and all the while not know there's a round in the chamber?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You seem to have a lot more information than the video offered. Source? But oh, dear, California--the woman says she looks as though she's had work done...
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to California's AWB? Well, they're in the process of expanding it to a zero feature test right now in order to "close loopholes" that weren't infringing quite enough. Which, by the way, is exactly what we said would happen. First they start with scary "military style" guns, and then move on to non-military styled.
ReplyDeleteOh, and they are throwing people in prison over this, so I need to remind you that you don't approve of these laws.
That's bullshit, TS. They are not "throwing people in prison over this." You may come up with some isolated examples to justify your hysterical statement, but it's still made-up bullshit.
DeleteI can show you the language in the law that says it is a felony to possess banned guns, and you admit I can provide examples of people being arrested and imprisoned. Where exactly do we get to the "made up bullshit" part?
DeleteMikeb, we all know that facts are bullshit to you, especially when the go against your beliefs. You don't have to remind us.
DeleteUsually I can figure out how you spin something in your mind in order to say the things that you say, but for the life of me I can't figure out how you came up with "I don't want to lock people up for non-violent gun crimes". You really have me stumped, because there isn't a single thing you say outside of that statement which would indicate otherwise. You clearly support the felony punishment provisions, and I have never seen you advocate for anyone caught up with these charges. What exactly did you mean when you said I can come up with examples? Is it that there aren't enough people in jail to meet your level of disapproval?
DeleteThat's bullshit, Mike. Most people are complying since the law was written in such a way that putting a bullet button on their rifle and changing the stock renders it legal. In the comparatively rare occasion where the police find a violation of the ban, the person goes to jail.
DeleteIt's dishonest to make certain prosecution of a rare offense sound like rare prosecution of common offenses.
The "made-up bullshit" part is your trying to pass it off as the regular rule rather than an exception.
DeleteThe "regular rule" isn't a felony? I really don't know what you mean.
DeleteRight, because they just arrest people for weapons felonies and cut them loose as a matter of regular procedure in California.
DeleteThat sucking sound is your credibility going down the drain.
I believe it's TS who is losing credibility by trying to say people are being thrown into prison for possessing assault weapons. It's exaggerated nonsense that he's trying to pass off as an everyday occurrence. It's more of the poor persecuted gun owner syndrome.
DeleteYou know it's a felony. You know there are people arrested and prosecuted. So it seems your beef with me is that something has to happen every single day in order for it to be a problem? How absurd. I never even remotely suggested that this is my standard for bad law. So when you say you don't want to lock people up for non-violent gun crimes, you really mean you don't want to lock up people everyday- but something like five days a week would be peachy. Is that right?
DeleteBy the way, voter suppression tends to only happen one day a year in November, so I guess that's cool.
I know, I'm really hard to follow, especially when claiming so is a way of personally attacking me.
DeleteMost non-violent gun crimes would best be punished with fines, probation and the loss of gun rights. In my "perfect world" judges would exercise their discretion and suspend the prison sentences. That doesn't mean the maximum punishment should not include any mention of the slammer, on the contrary, we need that for multiple repeat offenders and certain other cases in which prison is appropriate.
I repeat: prison is for those we're afraid of not for those we're mad at.
Ok, I think I get your position. You want harsh laws that punish these people with felonies and prison sentences, but if you were a judge, you would be lenient for the non-violent people. My problem is your leaving it up to the judge, they don't have to be lenient, and in some cases CAN'T be lenient because of minimum sentence laws. I suppose you'd have to do away with manditory sentence laws. Of course my biggest problem is most of these things shouldn't even be illegal. You shouldn't get to take away someone's right to own a gun for the crime of owning a gun (because you don't like the grip or something).
DeleteUltimately you are still willing to throw a whole lot of people in the slammer. You're going to label 32.5 million gun owners as unfit right off the bat, and since they already had their rights stripped, you'll be forced to imprison them if they are caught with a gun. Even if you get 90% compliance, that's still 3 million people who you'd be willing to throw in jail, even if they never hurt anyone. And that doesn't count the number of people who only live with a disqualified person, and all the disqualified people who didn't own a gun when they were disqualified. You have to throw them in prison to if they are ever caught with a gun.
Saying you don't want non-violent people in prison, means that you'd have to decriminalize these non-violent acts. It's the only way.
Felony possession of a gun would not necessarily result in jail time. When caught, these people could be fined, sentenced to community service or probation and of course lose the guns.
DeleteThen the law needs to read that way. And you don't need to label it a felony anymore. It would be a misdemeanor or possibly infraction.
Delete