cb1000rider wrote:chasfm11 wrote:
Let's not get this too far away from the central point - how do we impose accountability on those who are enforcing the gun laws for political purposes rather than to deal with crime as they were supposedly intended to do.
I think we start by becoming an educated public, but as our founding fathers made this a Republic, it maybe too much to ask.
Look, politicians by nature play the issue strings. It's not just gun laws. It's gun laws when you're speaking to a group of people that are associated with the NRA or a group or parents from Columbine. For others, it's medicare or social security. For others it's income taxes, property taxes, business taxes... It's whatever floats the boat of that particular constituency. It's not like most politicians actually have strong lines of support for this stuff - it's that they can feign support and fool most of the public.
And the public needs to get it that there is no free lunch. You can't have your pet program at no cost. In fact, we've all got to man up and recognize that we've already overspent. No one wants to talk about austerity, because we're not "that bad" yet - and many still believe that we economically grow our way out of this without any personal consequences.
We start compromising. Without compromise you end up with what we have in congress.
Push politicians for decisions made on actual data. Not politically spun data. Independent (if possible) analysis and data. If the data turns out to be wrong, you expire the decision. New spending goes on the books with a finite limit at which time it has to be re-debated. Same thing with new taxes.
I have a different view. I believe that it was compromise that brought us to where we are today. I do NOT want to try to eat the whole entitlement enchilada here so let's not follow the government payment/no vote path.
In my view, there is and never has been a compromise by the gun control faction. When they don't get everything they want this time, that is not a compromise because they are back proposing the rest of the package at the next event. They've lost with things like the assault weapons ban termination but were back with it in spades following Sandy Hook. They never compromise. They never go away. But that really wasn't the focus of why I posted this situation.
At issue here is not the politicians themselves but about how they've manipulated to legal justice system. Before someone tries to take me to task for this, I believe that our system is the best in the world. But that does not mean that it is perfect and that some of the flaws don't need to be addressed. The part that I cannot reconcile is how some of the most egregious acts are pardoned while others get the full force of the law. The recent news of the 10 year probation for an underage driver who was 3 times the legal alcohol limit, driving at twice the posted rate of speed and killed 4 people is one such situation. Again, before someone jumps on me, that is a real crime where real people died. Contrast that to were kids are punished for using imaginary guns or eating a cookie to look like a gun. Zero tolerance is the answer...except when it isn't. Interestingly, the zero tolerance situations always seem to be leveled at otherwise good kids who are not trouble makers AND WHERE NO HARM IS DONE TO ANYONE. Yes, I'd admit that I'm over generalizing but I'm trying to make a point. That point is that victimless crimes cannot weigh more than crimes that have real consequences.
In the story, a BG already on GPS monitoring commits a homicide while on that monitoring. Magically, the DA cannot find enough evidence to charge him. Yet in a story a couple of years ago, a soldier who has "illegal" magazines in the same area is prosecuted. Where was the probation option there?
At the core of this is selective enforcement. I recently got into a big debate on Facebook when I called our town a "speed trap". The posting war started. But my opponents hung themselves when they supported their claims of enforcement for "safety reasons" and we got into a discussion about what the biggest causes of crashes were in the high enforcement areas. Those crashes were not caused by speeding but by tailgaiting, red light running, etc. I asked for the statistics of the enforcement of those infractions and the thread when dead. For me, it is all shades of the same thing. Speeding is enforced, not for safety as claimed, but for revenue. Gun control is enforced not for safety as claimed but for oppression of those who might pose a danger to the "State". When to we call them on it and how? I'm no longer willing to compromise on allowing these practices to continue unchallenged.
I do realize that the DA position is elected in most areas and that, as a result, it will always have a political component. But to allow a DA to skate when a monitored BG murders someone while on that monitoring and doesn't get charged for that murder WITH A GUN is just over the top. I cannot go to DC with my otherwise legal handgun but this BG can murder with his and get away with it????? Nope. Not tolerable.
Educating the public may be part of the answer but we do have media poised against us on that. I submit that a good part of the public IS educated that allowing gun murderers to get off is not a good thing. I'm encouraged when stories about the 5 year old kissing the girl and getting charged for sexual harassment go viral and cause a lot of push back (he was guilty of repeated and unwanted contact but that his hardly sexual harassment) It means that a lot of people are paying attention. For me, what is missing is a way to get them to pay that same attention to these disparities in gun enforcement.
And I'll take it further. The basis of the discussion is "shall not be infringed." When the gun grabbers will first acknowledge Constitutional carry everywhere, then I'm happy to talk about background checks as long as the discussion is clear about the fact that every restriction on who can own or carry firearms is based on solid evidence, not a bunch of trumped up, emotionally charged pie-in-the-sky hooey that puts "climate change" to shame.