(01-25-2017 02:57 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  As a dude who is moderate and doesn't really drink the Kool Aid of either of the two major parties, I find this thread interesting.

Republicans want smaller government and less government interference. If Obama had tried to send in the feds to Chicago to clean things up, it would have been labeled a waste of taxpayer money, labeled government overreach, and Obama would have been accused of favoring problems in his hometown of Chicago while ignoring the same problems in other cities. However, when Trump does this he is some kind of savior who is fixing the failures of the past President? It really isn't logical thinking.

This is Chicago's problem. I don't want my taxpayer money going toward it. The good people of Illinois can figure out how to get their own house in order like they should have years ago. If my tax money is going to go to drug/gang problems, there are plenty of smaller cities across my own state that could use the money to combat drugs and gangs. Now that is how smaller government should work. Tax as little as you have to tax and empower local governments to do what is best for themselves.

I highly doubt you would have seen anybody other than the most extreme hyper-partisan complaining about any President enforcing the law.

And much of Chicago's problems would fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government because of violations of federal law so the feds would be wholly justified to get involved.

(01-25-2017 03:19 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  It might not be important to you Husky but I'll bet you all the law abiding citizens that HAVE to live in crime ridden neighborhoods in Chicago welcome ANYONE coming in to fix the Emmanual racist administration.

It is important to me, but not enough to spend national taxpayer money on it. It sets the precedent that the federal government is responsible for local crime management, and they are not.

Wanting to spend federal money on fixing crime at a local level is, to a decent extent, a liberal type of approach. That is the irony here.

It's not like the feds are coming from Washington. There's federal police in every major cities already. All they need is the order.

(01-25-2017 08:49 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:40 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:28 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 07:36 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  I commend him on stating that he will send the feds. But at this point that's all it is is a statement. Send the Feds in now. Pres. Obama and the mayor had their chance. Don't tell me if they don't fix it you gonna send the Fed's. Just do it. Right now is just talk. The killing and shootings have been going on for to long. Why are you giving warnings?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Not sure how the feds are going to do anything unless its a gang problem.

Its a gang, drug, poverty, and gun problem.

Its a multi generational single parent and poverty problem that has morphed into a gang problem.

Yep. You are correct on that.

No, it is a problem created by liberal idiocy.

(01-25-2017 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 11:42 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:05 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 07:36 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  I commend him on stating that he will send the feds. But at this point that's all it is is a statement. Send the Feds in now. Pres. Obama and the mayor had their chance. Don't tell me if they don't fix it you gonna send the Fed's. Just do it. Right now is just talk. The killing and shootings have been going on for to long. Why are you giving warnings?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Not sure how the feds are going to do anything unless its a gang problem.

Unlike the Obama DOJ I have a feeling that this DOJ is actually going to prosecute federal crimes. The vast majority of these shootings is a violation of federal gun laws, and many of them could be tried as federal RICO violations due to the gang ties.

That is fine by me as long as they go all the way to the source of how these guns are being obtained illegally.

Fast and Furious.

(01-25-2017 03:41 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:19 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  It might not be important to you Husky but I'll bet you all the law abiding citizens that HAVE to live in crime ridden neighborhoods in Chicago welcome ANYONE coming in to fix the Emmanual racist administration.

It is important to me, but not enough to spend national taxpayer money on it. It sets the precedent that the federal government is responsible for local crime management, and they are not.

Wanting to spend federal money on fixing crime at a local level is, to a decent extent, a liberal type of approach. That is the irony here.

It's not like the feds are coming from Washington. There's federal police in every major cities already. All they need is the order.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not opposed to action being taken. I am just pointing out that it still costs money. I think that the devil is in the details as to the approach and how much money should be thrown at this problem.

We just found 20 million stashed under a mattress. Maybe we can use that.

(01-25-2017 03:19 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  It might not be important to you Husky but I'll bet you all the law abiding citizens that HAVE to live in crime ridden neighborhoods in Chicago welcome ANYONE coming in to fix the Emmanual racist administration.

It is important to me, but not enough to spend national taxpayer money on it. It sets the precedent that the federal government is responsible for local crime management, and they are not.

Wanting to spend federal money on fixing crime at a local level is, to a decent extent, a liberal type of approach. That is the irony here.

Disagree. A Conservative believes there are basically only three things the government should be doing:

1) Provide a National Defense;
2) Enforce Contracts Between Individuals; and
3) It should protect citizens from crime against themselves or their property.

What you describe is more the philosophy of an Anarchist, who sees no role for government at all.

(01-25-2017 04:00 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:19 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  It might not be important to you Husky but I'll bet you all the law abiding citizens that HAVE to live in crime ridden neighborhoods in Chicago welcome ANYONE coming in to fix the Emmanual racist administration.

It is important to me, but not enough to spend national taxpayer money on it. It sets the precedent that the federal government is responsible for local crime management, and they are not.

Wanting to spend federal money on fixing crime at a local level is, to a decent extent, a liberal type of approach. That is the irony here.

Disagree. A Conservative believes there are basically only three things the government should be doing:

1) Provide a National Defense;
2) Enforce Contracts Between Individuals; and
3) It should protect citizens from crime against themselves or their property.

What you describe is more the philosophy of an Anarchist, who sees no role for government at all.

I never said that the government has no role in protecting citizens from crime against themselves or their property. However, that responsibility in our society falls under the umbrella of the police and not the military and policing local neighborhoods is the responsibility of the states and local municipalities and not the federal government. Having tax money from the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago go to protect the citizens of Chicago would be the conservative method. Having federal tax dollars pay for a military style of policing streets in our cities is not only not a conservative approach, but it is a slippery slope. It puts us one step closer to having a federal government that is able to monitor and control everything little movement that we do. That may sound like freedom for some, but to me it sounds like a military state.

(01-25-2017 01:54 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:40 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:36 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 12:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Only if the seller is proven to be a psychic because that's the only way they would be able to determine the true intent of someone who otherwise would be a legal gun buyer.

So what exactly does a seller need to do before he can sell a gun?

We have gone over the process with you multiple times so I'm not going to waste my time when you obviously have no true desire to learn and are only trying to derail yet another topic. The information you seek is readily available on the internet.

Your refusal to answer what exactly a seller has to do to sell a weapon tells me that the answer is absolutely nothing.

Sellers of guns have to do absolutely nothing in order to sell guns to people. Those guns end up in the hands of criminals. There is your problem.

If Trump truly wants to take care of the problem in Chicago, then he should start at the source where there is no consequences for sellers who sell guns.

You are leaving a very important element out of this. Criminals that have no business having a gun/weapon will be prosecuted on federal charges. Something that isn't/wasn't done for a long time. Did we have this many murders in Chicago before Oblunder? I don't know, it's an honest question.

I realize this and I don't have a problem with it. I was simply asking if they were going to do more than just that.

(01-25-2017 03:07 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Fit, I can only hope that they do and I think they will.

I'm okay with that. I was simply throwing out a suggestion.

What kind of ******* ( and I''m not talking about you) calls someone an idiot for trying to come up with a solution rather than complain, complain, complain.

(01-25-2017 04:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:07 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Fit, I can only hope that they do and I think they will.

I'm okay with that. I was simply throwing out a suggestion.

What kind of ******* ( and I''m not talking about you) calls someone an idiot for trying to come up with a solution rather than complain, complain, complain.

The kind of person who is educated on the subject and knows that the idiot's "solution" doesn't solve the problem he thinks exists.

Have you learned what a straw purchase is yet and why your "solution" wouldn't stop a single one of them?

(01-25-2017 04:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:07 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Fit, I can only hope that they do and I think they will.

I'm okay with that. I was simply throwing out a suggestion.

What kind of ******* ( and I''m not talking about you) calls someone an idiot for trying to come up with a solution rather than complain, complain, complain.

The kind of person who is educated on the subject and knows that the idiot's "solution" doesn't solve the problem he thinks exists.

Have you learned what a straw purchase is yet and why your "solution" wouldn't stop a single one of them?

You are parsing words man. You know damn well what I 'm talking about but let's just pretend you are correct and there is no problem in Chicago.

(01-25-2017 04:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:07 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Fit, I can only hope that they do and I think they will.

I'm okay with that. I was simply throwing out a suggestion.

What kind of ******* ( and I''m not talking about you) calls someone an idiot for trying to come up with a solution rather than complain, complain, complain.

The kind of person who is educated on the subject and knows that the idiot's "solution" doesn't solve the problem he thinks exists.

Have you learned what a straw purchase is yet and why your "solution" wouldn't stop a single one of them?

You are parsing words man. You know damn well what I 'm talking about but let's just pretend you are correct and there is no problem in Chicago.

I'm parsing words? LOL

Quote:Why not pass a law that says that anyone who has a criminal record requires some kind of code on their id. Gun sellers have to ask for ID and if they see the code, they cannot sell the gun to them without penalty.

This way, gun sellers can still sell their guns but they don't have to worry about selling their firearm to someone with a criminal record. This wouldn't stop straw sales 100% but it might put a significant dent in it.

You could make it law where criminals were branded on the forehead with a great big C and it wouldn't stop a single straw purchase because.......wait for it......wait for it........straw purchases are when criminals have people with clean records buy firearms for them because they can pass background checks. Now you see why your "solution" isn't a solution after all?

And I readily admit there is a problem in Chicago so don't go putting words in my mouth to provide a smokescreen to cover for your absolute ignorance on the issue.

(01-25-2017 04:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:16 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 03:07 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Fit, I can only hope that they do and I think they will.

I'm okay with that. I was simply throwing out a suggestion.

What kind of ******* ( and I''m not talking about you) calls someone an idiot for trying to come up with a solution rather than complain, complain, complain.

The kind of person who is educated on the subject and knows that the idiot's "solution" doesn't solve the problem he thinks exists.

Have you learned what a straw purchase is yet and why your "solution" wouldn't stop a single one of them?

You are parsing words man. You know damn well what I 'm talking about but let's just pretend you are correct and there is no problem in Chicago.

I'm parsing words? LOL

Quote:Why not pass a law that says that anyone who has a criminal record requires some kind of code on their id. Gun sellers have to ask for ID and if they see the code, they cannot sell the gun to them without penalty.

This way, gun sellers can still sell their guns but they don't have to worry about selling their firearm to someone with a criminal record. This wouldn't stop straw sales 100% but it might put a significant dent in it.

You could make it law where criminals were branded on the forehead with a great big C and it wouldn't stop a single straw purchase because.......wait for it......wait for it........straw purchases are when criminals have people with clean records buy firearms for them because they can pass background checks. Now you see why your "solution" isn't a solution after all?

And I readily admit there is a problem in Chicago so don't go putting words in my mouth to provide a smokescreen to cover for your absolute ignorance on the issue.

Can a person with a criminal record but not a felony currently buy a gun from a seller? Can a person with a clean record buy a gun?

Which is more likely to buy a gun for someone who can't?

(01-25-2017 04:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Can a person with a criminal record but not a felony currently buy a gun from a seller?

Depends on what the crime is. Some misdemeanors can put you on the prohibited list.

Quote:Can a person with a clean record buy a gun?

Of course

Quote:Which is more likely to buy a gun for someone who can't?

More than likely they are going to employ people with totally clean records because they don't want to draw scrutiny upon themselves.

That's why earlier in the thread I stated this:

Quote:The only way to completely stop straw purchases is to invent a mind reading device so you'll know the true intent of the purchaser.

An effective way to curtail most straw purchases is to aggressively prosecute violators and for judges to aggressively sentence people convicted of the charge. When people realize that there's a pretty good chance that if they buy a gun for someone who shouldn't possess it that they'll spend the next 10 years of their life in federal prison it serves as an awfully effective deterrent. With the lax enforcement of gun laws the past eight years that deterrent has been non-existent.

You can't punish the seller for doing everything by the book and someone else breaking the law after the gun is out of their control, especially when there's no way outside of the purchaser telling the seller they are buying the gun for somebody else for them to know the real reason they are purchasing the gun.

THAT is what one would call an effective solution to the problem that comes from someone who has a clue what they are talking about.

(01-25-2017 08:39 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 05:59 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I would stay out of it. It is a Rahm/democrat problem.

I'd stay out of it.. it's a local/state issue not a federal issue.

Yea I agree. I think this can set a bad precedent. This is clearly a state issue.

Essentially it would be Marshall law which in my opinion would escalate tensions.

(01-25-2017 05:15 PM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:39 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 05:59 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I would stay out of it. It is a Rahm/democrat problem.

I'd stay out of it.. it's a local/state issue not a federal issue.

Yea I agree. I think this can set a bad precedent. This is clearly a state issue.

Essentially it would be Marshall law which in my opinion would escalate tensions.

How would federal law enforcement enforcing federal law be a state issue?

And how would civilian federal law enforcement enforcing federal law be martial law?

(01-25-2017 05:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 04:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Can a person with a criminal record but not a felony currently buy a gun from a seller?

Depends on what the crime is. Some misdemeanors can put you on the prohibited list.

Quote:Can a person with a clean record buy a gun?

Of course

Quote:Which is more likely to buy a gun for someone who can't?

More than likely they are going to employ people with totally clean records because they don't want to draw scrutiny upon themselves.

That's why earlier in the thread I stated this:

Quote:The only way to completely stop straw purchases is to invent a mind reading device so you'll know the true intent of the purchaser.

An effective way to curtail most straw purchases is to aggressively prosecute violators and for judges to aggressively sentence people convicted of the charge. When people realize that there's a pretty good chance that if they buy a gun for someone who shouldn't possess it that they'll spend the next 10 years of their life in federal prison it serves as an awfully effective deterrent. With the lax enforcement of gun laws the past eight years that deterrent has been non-existent.

You can't punish the seller for doing everything by the book and someone else breaking the law after the gun is out of their control, especially when there's no way outside of the purchaser telling the seller they are buying the gun for somebody else for them to know the real reason they are purchasing the gun.

THAT is what one would call an effective solution to the problem that comes from someone who has a clue what they are talking about.

Gun owners are law abiding citizens. This is what many of you have said all along. No law abiding citizen is going to knowingly sell a gun to a criminal.

No one is suggesting that we punish the seller for doing everything by the book. But if we could prove that a seller knowingly sold a weapon to a criminal, then we can eliminate that seller.

(01-25-2017 05:19 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Gun owners are law abiding citizens. This is what many of you have said all along. No law abiding citizen is going to knowingly sell a gun to a criminal.

Not sure what you are trying to say here but OK

Quote:No one is suggesting that we punish the seller for doing everything by the book. But if we could prove that a seller knowingly sold a weapon to a criminal, then we can eliminate that seller.

But a gun dealer selling to a criminal isn't a straw purchase. It's a totally separate violation of the law and there are already provisions for punishing both the dealer and the buyer with felony charges. Every law abiding gun owner I know and every gun rights organization, including the NRA, supports the vigorous prosecution of these kind of crimes and other violations of existing federal gun law, including straw purchases.
Here's what the NRA had to say about the gun violence in Chicago.....in 2013:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130501...ts-a-crime

Quote:If anybody in Chicago is culpable for the armed carnage on that city’s mean streets, it’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who never misses an opportunity to blame peaceable, law-abiding gun owners for the daily bloodletting by violent Chicago thugs.

Emanuel steadfastly refuses to demand application of tough federal laws that would surgically rid the streets of criminals who currently terrorize many Chicago neighborhoods. And that represents a kind of aggressive political malfeasance.

For Emanuel—a former U.S. congressman, former chief of staff in President Barack Obama’s White House and former Bill Clinton White House gun-ban guru—to intentionally blow off federal laws punishing illegally armed violent criminals is especially vile.

The reason is simple. If Chicago citizens knew the extent of existing harsh criminal sanctions and that those laws could readily be applied to prosecute real criminals, Emanuel’s endless call for new “gun control” would be seen for what it is: an evil campaign to disarm the innocent. And those federal laws apply equally in every corner of the nation.

Quote:So let me cite—from a federal public defender fact sheet—a few of the existing federal statutes dealing with armed criminals once they have their guns. I’ll give you the prison term first along with the citations in the United States Code (U.S.C.).

10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, fugitive, or drug user … And possession means touching a gun, any gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun. Any firearm that Sen. Dianne Feinstein would ban for us, is already an illegal gun for violent criminals.

10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.

10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.

10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.

5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(a)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.

The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.

15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.

10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(g)—for interstate travel to acquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes.

So, if every possible aspect of acquisition, possession, transport, transfer of a firearm by criminals demands harsh and swift punishment under existing law, what is it that Emanuel, Bloomberg and President Obama really want?

You know who didn't? Your idol Obama.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ge-w-bush/

Quote:Syracuse University’s TRAC Reports recently revealed that Obama’s tough talk about increasing prosecution of federal gun laws was just that—talk. In fact, Obama’s annual prosecution of gun crimes has never reached the levels of prosecutions seen during George W. Bush’s last five years in office.

According to Yahoo News, one of Obama’s 23 executive directives in January 2013 was to “amp up prosecutions of federal gun laws.”

Yet TRAC Reports shows that prosecutions for gun violations actually began a decline in 2013. In fact, prosecutions in 2013 were lower than 2012. Gun crime prosecutions were even lower in 2014 and actually hit an all-time low for the Obama administration in 2015. For example, “during fiscal year (FY) 2014 the Justice Department said the government obtained 20.3 weapons convictions for every one million people in the United States… [and that dropped to] 19.1 weapons convictions for one million people in the United States during FY 2015.”

To put it another way, FY 2015 represents a 15.5 percent drop in prosecutions from 5 years ago and a 34.8 percent drop from the midway point of Bush’s eight years in office.

This is why you get called out for being an idiot.....you don't know anything concerning this issue beyond the leftist buzzwords. I suggest that if you want to offer "solutions" that you educate yourself beyond the tripe put out there by Salon, Vox, Huffpo, and Buzzfeed.

Here's a big problem. We are not vigorously prosecuting crimes under current law. Do that first, and then start looking at whether we need more laws.