Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stop and frisk is against the Constitution. And I say this as a gun owner. I won't tolerate that. One reason I don't want to live in New York City.
Stop and frisk was a Giuliani/Bloomberg thing. De Blasio didn't continue it. But when it was in place, it got tons of guns off the streets and saved many lives.
Furthermore, if you are a legal firearms owner, the NYC is the last place you want to live, stop-and-frisk notwithstanding, outside of certain places like MA or CA. The restrictive nature of the firearms laws of the state of NY are worse when one considers the fact that NYC has its own laws which make it even harder to legally own a firearm.
President Donald Trump said in the 2015-2016 debates he owned a concealed carry permit. While it is legally possible to acquire such a permit as a Manhattan resident, it's also nearly impossible. His name, fame, and wealth ensured the right strings were pulled so that he was granted one. You? Me?
I though the constitution racist. Isn’t it the same constitution that legalized the war on drugs and mandatory minimal sentencing? The same constitution that can lock you up for weed or deny you bail?
If the constitution is sacred again, then we blacks have zero excuse to be shooting eachother.
I read about something similar with Mississippi and Chicago. Many of the guns used in Chicago's gang wars are coming from Mississippi through similar connections. Mississippi gun laws make gun access easier.
Aww, that's so cute! Rather than blaming the problem on Chicago's criminals, on Chicago's leadership that allows criminals to thrive and flourish, rather than demanding accountability from the areas leaders who have the moronic mantra of "defund the police" and who refuse to lock up vicious criminals-they blame Mississippi. Chicago's leadership and media has to accept responsibility for their failures, for the failures of their leadership, and for having so many trash citizens. Not make excuses or blame other states for their failures.
Why not just stop and frisk everyone out in public more often? Oh yea, that’s racist. Forgot.
Democrats can’t inconvenience their local inner city gangs, for fear of losing votes.
Quote:
CHICAGO (CBS) — At least 66 people have been shot in Chicago so far this weekend, and eight of the victims have died, including a Chicago Police officer who was killed in the line of duty.
A few years back a guy I competed with in action pistol events went to a big USPSA/IPSC event in Sacramento. Huge event. International. Thousands of people in attendance competitors vendors and spectators. He stayed through the duration of the event and was heading home when he was pulled over just before Auburn by CHP for a speed infraction. His pistols wee in the back seat in locked cases and his magazines and ammo were in locked containers in the trunk as required by CA law. To be legally tansported firearms and ammunition cannot be in the same compartment of a vehicle'
The cop sees the locked weapons cases on the back seat and using the mere presence of the legal firearms as probable cause pulls the guy out of the car and tosses it. He found an absolutely unforgivable and blatant violation of CA law and seized the firearms and ammunition and cited my buddy accordingly. What was this act of domestic terrorism you ask? One, just ONE, singular round of live ammunition in the console. Probably dropped it in his pocket after a stage when he unload and cleared and he just absentmindedly tossed it in the onsole after finding it whilst digging for his keys or something.
Over ten grand worth of custom competition firearms siezed on the spot fo ONE live round in the same compartment as the locked up pistols and all the magazines for the guns secured in the trunk. Oh he went to court, pled his case and the judge said to bad. The guns were probably already in this judges gun safe in his palatial home paid for with tax dollars in this justices wages. And a nice hefty fine he had to pay as well. I'm sue all the CA bangers heading to do a drive by follow these laws to the letter. They wouldn't want to break the law would they?
The cops ain't worried about those types. Criminals cost the system money to prosecute feed and house plus supplying a public defender. Pounding a mud hole into law abiding types like my fellow competitor yields confiscated goodies and hefty fines that need to be paid. Just good business ya know. This is EXACTLY what happens everywhere such laws exist. The criminals commit crimes with firearms while the cops harass legal firearms owners over petty beefs like that stray round in my friends car. Cops and DAs in places with these sorts of laws are far more concerned with revenue than they are actually arresting and prosecuting real bad guys.
And people actually wonder why criminal use of firearms is so high and getting worse by the day. So the hoplophobes yowl for tougher laws which in places like Chicago, NYC LA, and other leftist Meccas get put on the books but criminals shoot even more people and these ban happy Bozos just don't understand. Shocking, I know.
The problem with cases like this is that law enforcement officers are oftentimes ignorant of their states' firearms laws. And I say this as a diehard conservative who is generally very pro-police.
I've heard of cases where police stop civilians, see firearms but they are unloaded and locked in cases in the trunk, and the officer calls his chief and the chief tells him that the said civilian is transporting firearms in a way compliant with the laws and must let him go.
People who say gun laws have to be tougher make one basic and yet utterly predictable fallacy every single time.
And I mean that literally, without any exaggeration.... EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME.
And that fallacy is: "more/better gun control laws, we just ask for that; we just ask for common-sense gun laws to stop gun violence!"
But this is a fallacious approach because it is not even thinking. It's feeling. It's hoping. It's a human proclivity, completely emotional, to do "something" so that a given problem is solved or ameliorated. And thus, with magazine capacity restrictions or making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed carry permits (NY, NJ, CA, and MA, I'm talking about you) or restricting certain types of gun accessories on grounds that their availability turns a rifle into an assault weapon (again, I'm talking about ludicrous gun laws found in states like NJ or NY, which include things like forbidding collapsible butt stocks or certain types of muzzle devices or a bayonet lug - because if one wants to stab somebody to death, isn't it just easier to buy a very small pocket knife?), this fallacious approach is called for, demanded (Moms Demand Action, Everytown), and turned into laws... laws that do NOTHING to reduce "gun violence."
This approach is a statist one. Typical of the left, ranging from the diehard revolutionaries to everyday people in the middle class who are college-educated and who simply vote Democrat, this approach places upon the state the onus to solve problems in society.
But murder can't be legislated out of existence. Murder can surely (and must be) severely punished by the laws of the land, but laws mandating certain penal sanctions for murder or manslaughter or assault or theft or arson or rape or larceny - these are laws listing and commanding PUNISHMENT - they are not preventing it.
The state cannot stop a person intent on doing something evil any more than the state can prevent a man from hating women or a woman from hating men or a white person from hating blacks or a black person from hating whites. The state cannot stop a person from being sexist or from thinking Asians are ugly or from thinking Latinos are stupid or from thinking Jews are dishonest.
It is when such thoughts become an action which break law that the state can then step in. The women-hating man from the example above: the moment he decides to bring that hatred out into the world from the deep and dark recesses of his heart and mind, and thus physically harms or harasses or destroys the property of women - now the state can step in. Now, our misogynist has broken the law, and now he must be sanctioned.
But until then, the state can do nothing.
Firearms themselves are not the problem. We live in a country where rifles which look military and which use the caliber used by the U.S. military and by the militaries of many Third World countries and of China and of the USSR/Russia are available for civilian use - and which can be modified so they can be fired select-fire ("machine gun"), although of course this is thoroughly illegal and must never be done because it's a crime and the law will punish anybody who does it.
Yet, despite the availability of such rifles and the hundreds of thousands of AR-15 and AK47 rifles which are legally owned - how many times are they used in mass shootings?
The very fact that there are more than 300 million firearms in circulation in this country and that mass shootings and literal gang warfare the way it has been witnessed in Africa, with militiamen/soldiers firing at each other at will meters from each other in streets, shows that considering the number of guns out there, "gun violence" is a relatively small problem.
If tough gun laws helped reduce gun crime, why is it that over the past several years, one state after another has loosened gun laws to the extent that but for a minority of states (again: CA, NY, NJ, MD, MA), almost every state in the U.S. is "shall issue" for concealed carry permits, and that there are several which allow carry WITHOUT a permit.... and why is it that the no-permit-needed states have NEVER ONCE seen a drastic, dramatic, and frightening spike of gun violence? If one doesn't even need a government license to legally carry a pistol, wouldn't that embolden evildoers?.... but why is it that these "Constitutional carry" states have never seen any such wave of sudden "gun violence?"
And however politically incorrect it is to say this, it must be said: the overwhelming majority of counties in this country where firearms are legally owned by civilians see very few illegal uses of firearms, whether it's a gun crime such as a criminal shooting (gang gunfights) or a homeowner who shot a fleeing burglar in the back; and, that the overwhelming majority of lawful gun owners never gets into crime. It's a small minority of localities which see the bulk of illegal gun use.
One must know the facts. A farmer in Nebraska who owns 2 or 3 six-shooter revolvers he got from his father who got it from his father, plus a few shotguns which he uses for hunting, cannot be equated with a member of the Latin Kings or of MS-13 or of the Bloods or of the Crips who acquired his firearm illegally and uses it strictly to kill enemy gang members. The former is likely a salt-of-the-Earth, American of Americans, model/upstanding citizen who's never harmed anybody. The latter.... not so much.
If the localities where gang warfare exists and which therefore are hotbeds of gun violence were suddenly emptied of human life and miraculously became parks or forests or lakes overnight, the frightening "gun violence" numbers that gun control advocates harp as an embarrassment for the U.S. if compared with similar rates from other countries would plummet.
There are, as well, countries with extremely tough gun laws, far more strict than even those of states like MA, NJ, or NY, but which have "gun violence" numbers that are even worse. Mexico. Brazil.
We don't like to think of it this way, but it's reality: culture matters. There is for example very little difference in ethnicity and educational achievement levels and cultural makeup between the U.S. state of Vermont and the Canadian province of Quebec. Vermont allows permit-free carry and has no "assault weapons" laws for the ownership of rifles. Quebec has far stricter gun laws. But why does the "gun violence" rate not drastically increase once one crosses from Quebec into Vermont?
Whenever people want to harm others but can't get guns, they'll use something else. Knife violence is now a problem in Britain. In other European countries, they'll use vans or trucks to kill people.
And remember folks: every kitchen in America is LOADED with assault weapons. A knife can be used by a singular attacker to kill many. Anyone own a car? Why is it dangerous to drive drunk or to use it to charge pedestrians? Because a car is a multi-ton kinetic assault weapon.
The state can't stop us from using our steak knives or or minivans to kill people. It can punish us for it, and punish us it must and shall should we ever do anything so foolish, but again - the state can't stop us.
Evil cannot be legislated out of the hearts of human beings. This is why women which society now decries as "Karens" are called that - they have issues in their minds and hearts which make them act out. Sure, being a "Karen" isn't as bad as using a pistol to commit murder - but a public outburst or a deliberate shooting start in the same place.... in the heart and mind of human beings.... a place where the state cannot reach until it's time to sanction (prison).
Let guns be sold freely in every state. That would stop the gun trafficking. No need for it then.
They are already sold in all states. All one needs to do is to be a law-abiding citizen and to obey every law to purchase a firearm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
