• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A legislation proposal on accountability

The potential for confiscation, potential excessive taxation and until I been charged with a violent crime the government has no ****ing business knowing what firearms I do or don't own. That is why anyone who is actually a 2nd amendment supporter does not support firearm registration. Please don't lie your ass by claiming the 2nd amendment. We all know you ****ing don't support the 2nd amendment. You support the 2nd amendment like Planned Parenthood wants elective abortions banned by law.

And I guess you will now present my statements showing that I do not support the Second Amendment as it is written in the Constitution?
 
Proposed:

  • The person identified as the current registered lawful owner of a firearm shall be held strictly liable for crimes committed using their firearm. Their liability will be criminal.

    If you don't like the above proposed legislation, what would you want in exchange for acquiescing to the proposal's terms?


  • Is the purpose of all of this to protect Americans from mass shootings?

    If so, it is quite deficient. It is a fact, guns will rust and be unusable fairly quickly and they never kill anyone with out a human involved.

    Human behavior is the culprit here and modern America is so ignorant of the human mind and what drives it that they can easily be misled to believe that more government regulation will help.

    Some facts:

    American government was infiltrated and a slow takeover began with the act of 1871. That was england or the roman empire acting through it.

    Are you aware of the crusades and inquisitions? Do you know what was targeted there? It was the human social and individual ability to work directly with the unconscious mind with a form of hypnosis that is part of our animal mind which is unconscious.

    My point is that psychology is so controlled that they have no treatment that is direct to the unconscious. All they have are drugs that do not work, they disable and poison.

    Adding bureaucracy compromising rights is not going to help the people be safer. Insisting that courts deliver constitutional justice will, dynamically.

    Here is proof that local government and state courts, with federal courts, collude using media to prevent the people from even LEARNING about the injustice.

    Santa Barbara Secrets of media-Newspress, independent, county public defender.

    burns_hobbs_protest.jpg


    In 2006 17 reporters and editors were fired or resigned then gagged by the state court protecting the county from public awareness of neglect and nonfeasance, to prevent them from even talking about a federal lawsuit filed to compel Santa Barbara county to follow state health and safety code intended to see that local governments would work with the public to develop effective medical treatments. Two weeks after I gave a copy of a lawsuit filed by myself and 3 grandmothers to the first reporter was fired or resigned, 16 others joined here.

    7-6-06Newspress-rally.jpg


    Focus on getting constitutional courts and government and the public will be far safer in the longest term.
 
Last edited:
Is the purpose of all of this to protect Americans from mass shootings?
No.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is it to inspire people to exercise greater than they do now degrees of circumspection, prudence and perspicacity with regard to the maintenance and transfer of their firearms.

If protection from mass shootings be a correllary consequence of the proposed legislation, great, but that is not the aim of the proposal.
 
No.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is it to inspire people to exercise greater than they do now degrees of circumspection, prudence and perspicacity with regard to the maintenance and transfer of their firearms.

If protection from mass shootings be a correllary consequence of the proposed legislation, great, but that is not the aim of the proposal.

Okay, but it seems to me psychology could do a better job at it IF the public could get justice in compelling government to follow laws so psychology would have the information it needs to make medical decisions.

The same controversy had the sheriffs department failing to appear on subpoena in 1998 so the county could evade accountability for over 1,000 insanity actions missing from the courts records.

A letter admitting to the failure appear and being told to misrepresent the facts by the county counsel.
subdengif.gif


A declaration form the person who told me about the existence of the records I subpoenaed from the jail.
skuse.jpg


The civil index showing the abnormal record "Insanity Papers", with markups from sorting and removing court case files with information the judiciary did ont want to go into the public record.
insanity1876p11.jpg


Making new laws diminishing rights of Citizens is wrong and unfair, unconstitutional, when the government refuses to follow laws that prevent the public from making the same mistakes over and over by preserving a record of past mistakes.
 
Oops, got a phone call and missed the edit period. I guess this site allows two images max.

The civil index showing the abnormal record "Insanity Papers", with markups from sorting and removing court case files with information the judiciary did not want to go into the public record.

insanitypapers,jpg


Hmm, the image will not post and it will not upload as an image.

On edit: I had to change the name of that image and upload it to my server to get it to display.
 
Last edited:
Oops, got a phone call and missed the edit period. I guess this site allows two images max.

The civil index showing the abnormal record "Insanity Papers", with markups from sorting and removing court case files with information the judiciary did not want to go into the public record.

insanitypapers,jpg


Hmm, the image will not post and it will not upload as an image.

On edit: I had to change the name of that image and upload it to my server to get it to display.

Off Topic:
The site software, vBulletin, as implemented here does have an image quantity limit on posts and it's got other limits too; however, AFAIK, none of them are published, yet one will discover their existence upon trying to insert a document/image, upload an attachment, or submit one's post. I don't know which of the limits you encountered or their specific nature, but it doesn't surprise me that you hit one or more of them when you tried to post your image.

I examined other vBulletin implementations and found that they do not have the same limits. That suggests to me that the administrator(s) of this site have willfully defined the limits one encounters here.
 
Okay, but it seems to me psychology could do a better job at it IF the public could get justice in compelling government to follow laws so psychology would have the information it needs to make medical decisions.
  1. Psychology's ability to accomplish anything does not depend on what citizens can compel from government.
  2. Psychology has myriad sources from which and means by which psychology researchers (theoretical and/or clinical) may obtain information and data. The availability of records from over 100 years ago may be useful to some psychology researcher somewhere; however, it is not pertinent to whether the proposal outlined in this thread's OP is or may be a viable means of catalyzing the behavior I described in post 103.
  3. You have, in posting your remarks below, conflated one context of accountability, accountability of the government for document retention and reporting, with another, accountability of individuals to adequately maintain a device they own, specifically firearms.

    Insofar as accountability of the government for document retention and reporting is not the topic of this thread; thus I'm specifically asking you to cease with that line of discussion in this thread. By all means and if you desire to, create a thread to discuss the accountability of the government for document retention and reporting, but do not continue with your "pivot" to that topic in this thread.

The same controversy had the sheriffs department failing to appear on subpoena in 1998 so the county could evade accountability for over 1,000 insanity actions missing from the courts records.

A letter admitting to the failure appear and being told to misrepresent the facts by the county counsel.
y8mehm4c


A declaration form the person who told me about the existence of the records I subpoenaed from the jail.
yaj3wbrt


The civil index showing the abnormal record "Insanity Papers", with markups from sorting and removing court case files with information the judiciary did ont want to go into the public record.
y877ldhqf


Making new laws diminishing rights of Citizens is wrong and unfair, unconstitutional, when the government refuses to follow laws that prevent the public from making the same mistakes over and over by preserving a record of past mistakes.
 
I'll reword. Does the argument that we need assault weapons bans because of the potential that an owner will go rogue and commit a mass murder suffer from the aforementioned fallacy?

Yes. That is an unsound/incogent argumentfor an assault weapons ban.

Clarification re: my reply in the exchange above that is in red text:

I should have been clearer and more complete with my answer:


  • [*=1]Yes. --> The the potential that an owner will go rogue and commit a mass murder is, by itself, an unsound/incogent basis for arguing for the provisions one might promulgate in an assault weapons ban.
    [*=1]No. --> An argument presenting a soundly composed cost-benefit case (costs and benefits need to be quantified, but they need not be "in one's pocket" financial benefits) that shows that preparing for and/or taking action to avert the worst-case scenario (given its terminal nature, a person's death is a worst-case scenario/outcome) is the most economically sound course of action, then the ("just in case"/appeal to possibility) fallacy is not committed. Such an argument can be sound/cogent if used to support certain normative conclusions/assertions.

    Hypothetical example of such an argument
    "(Source)" refers to the fact that the noted premise assertions require sourcing. I haven't sought actual sources because the argument below is hypothetical.

    1. [*=1]​Premise: The dollar-value of any given human's life is a function of the economic contribution the person in question may make directly and indirectly to the economy (to GDP) in which he is a participant in the marketplace.

      • [*=1]Inference: Some individuals' lives are worth more than others.
        [*=1]Assumption: More GDP is better than less GDP.

      [*=1]Premise: Actuarial analysis has found that an average individual's contribution to GDP is ~$10M between the ages of 35 and 65. (Source)

      • [*=1]Inference: The dollar-value contribution to GDP an average individual makes roughly decreases as one ages.

      [*=1]Premise: 20K individuals are unlawfully and involuntarily killed by firearms.
      [*=1]Inferential calculation based on 2 and 3: Assuming 12K of the unlawfully killed-by-firearms individuals are 35 or younger, at least ~$120B is the value of unlawfully lost lives.
      [*=1]Premise: The lawfully conducted firearms industry contributes $31B to U.S. GDP. (Source)
      [*=1]Inference based on 4 and 5: The firearms industry contributes less to GDP than would have the people who were unlawfully and involuntarily killed by guns.
      [*=1]Premise: The proven theorems of statistics show that the lower the probability of an event's occurrence, the less frequently the event will occur.

      • [*=1]Inference: The worst-case event having a risk that we want to prevent is the unlawful and involuntary gun-related deaths of individuals.

      [*=1]Normative conclusion: We should enact policies/laws that individually or severally attempt to reduce unlawful involuntary firearms killings to no more than about three to five per year because the returns to GDP from their having lived are higher than the returns to GDP absent their contributions.

The example above illustrates how "just in case" reasoning can be used soundly/cogently to support a conclusion, particularly a normative one. It is possible also to use "just in case" reasoning to support positive conclusions. With either type of conclusion, however, it is often insufficient to merely toss out a simple remark (argument) such as the one in red that you offered and expect that it "hold water." It is because very few things are just that simple, but some things are. For example:

One should wear shoes when walking outdoors because to minimize the risk of cutting one's foot by stepping on glass that is be on the ground and that one doesn't notice and thus avoid.

The above "just in case" argument pertains to a simple enough situation that the premise and conclusion can be adequately enough stated in one simple sentence. Yes, one can present it in the outline format I used above, but the matter is simple enough and the premises are not likely to be contested, misconstrued or unknown by anyone. The same simply isn't so with complex matters such as "the gun debate."

Lastly, the sound/cogent conclusion of one argument can be used as a premise in other arguments. How to do that is among the things American high school students are taught in math class. Indeed, learning conceptually how to do so is among the key reasons students are taught how to prove theorems.​


 
Xelor, my posting is about protecting rights, and when I show that many rights have been violated that are related to a presented need for legislation, or showing that other laws already existing might make the legislation un needed, while it also compromises rights, means the points I've made are valid and reasonable. But the thread is not about that either. Okay.
 
And I guess you will now present my statements showing that I do not support the Second Amendment as it is written in the Constitution?

So you are saying that you don't support firearm registrations, assault weapons bans, magazine capacity bans, waiting periods, universal background checks, a permit/license just to be able to buy and or carry a firearm in public or raising the age to buy a rifle to 21?And that you don't bash pro-2nd amendment groups as gun manufacturer lobbyists for opposing firearm registrations, assault weapons bans, magazine capacity bans, waiting periods, universal background checks, a permit/license just to be able to buy and or carry a firearm in public or raising the age to buy a rifle to 21?
 
So you are saying that you don't support firearm registrations, assault weapons bans, magazine capacity bans, waiting periods, universal background checks, a permit/license just to be able to buy and or carry a firearm in public or raising the age to buy a rifle to 21?

I thought you were going to present evidence of your claim against me? Where is it?

btw - you can institute those things and still have a healthy Second Amendment with the right strong and firmly intact. Ronald Reagan supported much of that list and he was a strong friend of gun ownership.

The reality is that you pretend that these things are somehow harmful to the right but are actually reasonable and responsible ways to both protect the nation and to ensure the right is intact and not threatened by right wing extremists who eventually turn the nations people against the Second Amendment. And that is what folks who use your tactics are slowly doing by refusing to enact common sense laws like the ones you listed.

One can support the Second and support the proposals you listed.
 
I thought you were going to present evidence of your claim against me? Where is it?

My evidence is the fact you support those things listed. Anyone who supports the 2nd amendment would never actually support those things.



btw - you can institute those things and still have a healthy Second Amendment with the right strong and firmly intact. Ronald Reagan supported much of that list and he was a strong friend of gun ownership.

The reality is that you pretend that these things are somehow harmful to the right but are actually reasonable and responsible ways to both protect the nation and to ensure the right is intact and not threatened by right wing extremists who eventually turn the nations people against the Second Amendment. And that is what folks who use your tactics are slowly doing by refusing to enact common sense laws like the ones you listed.

Anyone who supports the 2nd amendment would never utter that crock of **** you just spewed.

One can support the Second and support the proposals you listed.

No you can't. Thats like saying you support freedom of religion but you think okay to ban some religions or you claim to support free speech but this hate speech should be illegal or that you support a woman's right to choose but think elective abortions should be illegal and so on.
 
Last edited:
My evidence is the fact you support those things listed.



No you can't. Thats like saying you support freedom of religion but you think okay to ban some religions or you claim to support free speech but this hate speech should be legal or that you support a woman's right to choose but think elective abortions should be illegal and so on.

So tell me how Ronald Reagan - who supported the same things that I support - was anti-Second Amendment? Tell me how a very long list of Republican office holders who have voted for some of the things on your list were against the Second Amendment.

The reality is that people who employ the tactics you are attempting to employ here are engaging in intellectual dishonesty in a sad attempt to smear their opponents who think differently than they do. It reeks of Joe McCarthy and you should be ashamed of it.

One can support the things on your list and still support the basic right of a citizen to own a firearm. There is no conflict there and only a far right extremist pretends to paint that dishonest and distorted picture as part of their own extremism.


The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.


Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.


And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.
 
So tell me how Ronald Reagan - who supported the same things that I support - was anti-Second Amendment? Tell me how a very long list of Republican office holders who have voted for some of the things on your list were against the Second Amendment.

The reality is that people who employ the tactics you are attempting to employ here are engaging in intellectual dishonesty in a sad attempt to smear their opponents who think differently than they do. It reeks of Joe McCarthy and you should be ashamed of it.

One can support the things on your list and still support the basic right of a citizen to own a firearm. There is no conflict there and only a far right extremist pretends to paint that dishonest and distorted picture as part of their own extremism.


The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.


Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.


And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.

Evoking Reagan and other RINOS won't work with me.Just because some in the conservative movement act as though he is Republican Jesus doesn't mean most conservatives feel that way. And even those who do act as though Reagan is Republican Jesus will admit that he ****ed up on a few things.

Yes we know the left hates Joe McCarthy because for a awhile he exposed them.

Again anyone who is a 2nd amendment supporter would never support those things. Anyone who claims to support the 2nd amendment and support those things is either a liar or a ****en moron. Judges making rulings based on their political beliefs and RINOs enacting or supporting anti-2nd amendment laws like registrations, assault weapon bans and etc doesn't make those things not infringements on the 2nd amendment.
 
Last edited:
Proposed:

  • The person identified as the current registered lawful owner of a firearm shall be held strictly liable for crimes committed using their firearm. Their liability will be criminal.
  • The state's burden of proof will be that concomitant with strict liability, that is, to show (1) who the current owner is and (2) that the current owner's firearm was indeed used to commit certain classes of crime -- rape, murder, attempted murder, battery, robbery, assault, breaking and entering, and vandalism, along with conspiracy to commit any of those.

  • The incarceration penalties to which currently registered owners will be held culpable will be one half of the maximum sentence allowed were they the actual perpetrator of the crime committed, provided the currently registered owner is not the current owner of the firearm.
    • The incarceration penalty cannot be reduced or otherwise truncated, suspended, etc.
    • Minors' exception: In instances where minors obtain a firearm and with it inflict harm on themselves or others, the incarceration sentence will be the full maximum allowed by law were the owner also the perpetrator of the crime.
    • Corporations: If the owner is a corporation, the parent and subsidiary organization(s) CEO(s), COO(s), and president (or substantively comparable executive principals) in both the parent and applicable subsidiary(s) will be held jointly and individually criminally culpable.
  • The fines current owners will have levided be:
    • Private citizens: No fines will be levied.
    • Businesses and other organizations: If the firearm in question was, at the time of the crime's commission, registered to a business or other organizations, the fine will be $1M per injury and $10M per death that the business' firearm was used to make happen.
    • Fines are due immediately upon conviction. Upon becoming 30 days past due, unpaid fines accrue compound penalty interest at the rate of 1% per month.
    • The fines stipulated above cannot be reduced.
  • Loss/Theft Exclusion: Individuals who and organizations that report their firearms as lost or stolen will not be held culpable, provided they (1) file the report, or can show documentation of having notified law enforcement officers of the weapon's loss/theft, prior to the crime's commission. and (2) allow. without a search warrant, law enforcement officers to examine the property to which they hold title/lease and from which their gun was stolen or lost.
    • In order to qualify for this exclusion, if a gun owner lacks title to the property from which they allege the gun was lost/stolen, the owner must obtain that property owner's authorization for a warrantless search. Barring that, the owner can report the item lost from any property to which s/he holds title or lease.
    • Individuals and organizations who, in any given three year period, report as lost more than one firearm shall have their right to fabricate, transport, own, possess and/or purchase firearms suspended for three years.
    • Assault Exclusion: Individuals who are incapacitated by another individual who, in turn, absconds with the victim's firearm(s) and uses it to commit a noted crime will not be held accountable per the above, provided the assaulted individual files an affidavit attesting to who incapacitated them and that there was no other person who could reasonably reported the theft on their behalf.
  • Estate Transfers of Title: Upon a registered gun owner's death, title to their firearms passes immediately in accordance with either the decedent's will (filed with the court) or the provisions of state law, whichever prevails at the time of death.
  • Registry Usage: Access to and use/distribution of registrant information is permitted only in instances of a firearm's having been used unlawfully. In such instances, information pertaining only to the firearm used may be accessed and/or distributed.

If you don't like the above proposed legislation, what would you want in exchange for acquiescing to the proposal's terms?

Pass, will not Register anything. The rest is BS. Next!
 
Evoking Reagan and other RINOS won't work with me.

Why would I care about what works with you?

You have demonstrated yourself to be an extremist on this issue who is far outside the mainstream and who will use McCarthistic tactics to attack those you have identified as your enemies.
 
I only want one number..... the percentage of times that registration results in confiscation.

While I can't find a listed number of the times registration led to confiscation of some kind, I can list several instances off the top of my head and a maybe even more than 50 cases if I sat down and thought about it and researched individual cases.
 
While I can't find a listed number of the times registration led to confiscation of some kind, I can list several instances off the top of my head and a maybe even more than 50 cases if I sat down and thought about it and researched individual cases.

Cherry picking anecdotal information is not what I asked for. I simply want to know in what percentage of cases does registration lead to confiscation so we can determine the depth and extent of this as a problem.
 
Cherry picking anecdotal information is not what I asked for. I simply want to know in what percentage of cases does registration lead to confiscation so we can determine the depth and extent of this as a problem.

And Again, I can't find what you are asking for. If you can find a stat on it then that would be a start.
 
And Again, I can't find what you are asking for. If you can find a stat on it then that would be a start.

Why would I find a stat when it is your side claiming the problem exists? I am merely asking you to present the stats on the problem you claim exists.
 
Why would I care about what works with you?

You thought evoking RINOs would work.So obviously you do care.

You have demonstrated yourself to be an extremist on this issue who is far outside the mainstream and who will use McCarthistic tactics to attack those you have identified as your enemies.
You have demonstrated with your support for anti-2nd amendment things such as firearm registrations, semiautomatic firearm bans under the guise of an assault weapons ban and many other things have demonstrated that you are anti-2nd amendment. Citing RINOs who support infringing on the 2nd amendment doesn't prove otherwise.
 
You thought evoking RINOs would work.So obviously you do care.


You have demonstrated with your support for anti-2nd amendment things such as firearm registrations, semiautomatic firearm bans under the guise of an assault weapons ban and many other things have demonstrated that you are anti-2nd amendment. Citing RINOs who support infringing on the 2nd amendment doesn't prove otherwise.

Yeah - me and Ronald Reagan. Which shows how far outside the mainstream your ideas are on this subject.
 
Yeah - me and Ronald Reagan. Which shows how far outside the mainstream your ideas are on this subject.

Thinking that semi-automatic firearms should be banned under the guise of assault weapons ban is not mainstream in this country.
 
Back
Top Bottom