Can you site a legal precedent where someone was convicted of aiding and abetting a crime for selling a gun under the conditions you stated?
Mark
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
Can you site a legal precedent where someone was convicted of aiding and abetting a crime for selling a gun under the conditions you stated?
Mark
does the lack of a legal precedent mean it's morally right?
If you sold a gun to somone that you know has in the past done violent crime, aren't you willingly enabling him to continue?
no law-abiding person would even consider selling their gun to someone they KNEW already had a criminal background.....that would be like me handing my daughter pain pills for a toothache when I knew she was a recovering addict.
You'd let her suffer? Even if you knew she was in pain, not faking pain to get pills? Sounds kinda cold hearted.
presumption when he said "you" since I am law-abiding.
"If you sold a gun to somone that you know has in the past done violent crime, aren't you willingly enabling him to continue?"
If I knew she was in pain, I would take her to the dentist.......would YOU have given her the pain pills knowing she was a recovering addict? THAT sounds more cold hearted than my solution. But then you, as a liberal, ARE an enabler and love dependent people, doncha?
and tell the dentist she's a druggie, and she may be lying about being in pain?
you thing no one with no convictions sells guns to people he (or she) knows has a criminal past? a mental illness?
Wasn't there recent 3 different cases pointed out lately where someone bought a gun for someone that couldn't because they had a record?
My question is, if you (generic not specific) sell to someone you know has done a violent crime in the past, he/she commits an armed robbery and someone gets shot, aren't you knowingly helping that robbery happen?
People sell guns on internet sites, bargain trader magazines, and only care about cash, not who buys them. Not everyone, but would you deny it happens regularly? I hear people talking about guns advertised, sometimes even grousing because it was such a deal and was sold shortly before they saw the ad and contacted the person.
These are basically law-abiding people I hear talking about it. My point is guns are more than once in a blue moon sold for cash with little question by people that want to sell.
Just because YOU wouldn't do it (nor would I) doesn't mean nobody would.
MarkatNite is basically advocating anarchy. I don't want to live in some post-apocalyptic "Mad Max" type of society where everyone is packing heat. We're supposed to be more advanced than that.
where only the criminal element is packing heat.....way to go, Josh.
No, I'm advocating a free society. Although I guess that could seem like anarchy to someone who would prefer a Totalitarian State. But the United States is supposed to be more advanced than that.
Mark
perhaps......however, I would think that there would be at least one law regarding 'stupid' and those found guilty wouldn't be allowed to vote in any elections anymore.
Of course, there are laws. Just like there are religion control laws that require all sales of Quran to be tracked on the chance that some nut job might kill a bunch of people in the name of Allah. And there are press control laws that require a waiting period of 10-days to prevent some irresponsible journalist from misreporting a fictional story as fact to support a political agenda. And speech control laws that require everyone to register with the government before speaking to prevent someone from giving demonstratively false testimony at a public policy hearing.
Oh, wait... - Mark
That will certainly give a new meaning to the word "news".
Newly received or noteworthy information, esp. about recent or important events.
"recent history" sounds more fitting than "news"
With an efficient government...it could pass a law before anyone even hears about it.
Presidential Executive Orders....Pass the Pen....
>"does the lack of a legal precedent mean it's morally right?"
No, but it does seem to indicate that it is not grounds for criminal charges which is what you originally asked.
>"If you sold a gun to somone that you know has in the past done violent crime, aren't you willingly enabling him to continue?"
No more so than a car dealership that sells a car to someone who has a DUI conviction. And yet, I'm not aware of any case in which criminal charges have been brought against a car dealership for doing this. Nor are car dealerships required to run criminal background checks on prospective buyers.
Mark
I've done it too, but I'm beginning to wonder why such a deep psychic connection between the two.
Do we really equate the two?
If you have a DUI they take your license, you can drive on public roads.
If you have a criminal record you're not suppose to be in possession of a gun if I understand correctly. Well, I think it does have to be a felony conviction.
But back to the point, you really think gun owners have no responsibility to help keep guns away from known violent criminals? You want all gun sales unrecorded, unregiestered, untraceable, and no responsibility? Is that your position?
>" Do we really equate the two?"
Personally, I do not. I noted elsewhere why I use the analogy.
>"If you have a DUI they take your license, you can drive on public roads."
That doesn't refute my point that car dealerships are not required to run background checks on all prospective buyers before selling a car. Or my point that we don't file criminal charges against car dealerships who sell cars to people with DUI convictions.
Yes, we do file criminal charges against a driver (again, not the seller) who has been barred from driving because of a previous DUI conviction. Similarly, I have no problem with filing criminal charges against a shooter (again, not the seller) who has been barred from owning a firearm because of a previous felony conviction. That's crime control, not gun control.
>" you really think gun owners have no responsibility to help keep guns away from known violent criminals? You want all gun sales unrecorded, unregiestered, untraceable, and no responsibility?"
No, you are again moving the goal posts. I stated that I do not think someone who sells a gun should have criminal charges filed against them. That does not mean I think they acted morally or showed good sense. Quite the opposite, in fact. As I said previously, I would never sell a gun in that manner.
But since we don't file criminal charges against a car dealership for selling a car to a person with a DUI conviction--or, if you prefer another non-car analogy: we don't file criminal charges against BestBuy or Dell for selling a computer to a convicted hacker--I think it's hypocritical to file criminal charges against someone who sells a gun to someone who is legally barred from owning one.
Mark
I had an outage here for my satellite modem due to severe storms and couldn't post NBC's abhorrent behavior ONCE AGAIN for editing news video and/or audio in order to press their agendas. Now I'm waiting for the 'three Musketeers' to show up and trivialize your post specifically because of the links you used rather than bash the news station directly....they do it every time to me when I use those two sources you used.
WHY anyone NEEDS a weapon with high capacity clips...Then someone shouts about Second Amendment.
What does the Second Amendment have to do with NEEDS?
The person didn't answer the question that was posed...So they were heckling/interrupting.
and seek out some examples of how it's really done. The asked a question. Thus, he invited answers. Whether or not the answer fit wasn't relevant. He was not shouted down, embarrassed, mocked or any such thing. He was calm when asking and claiming no one could answer but he did invite the attempt. I can't consider a statement that's quoted or paraphrased from the US constitution to be an act of heckling here. The heckling claim was, IMO, pure media hyperbole.
So, in your mind, anything other than a direct answer to a question is "heckling". That being the case, the next time I feel a need to hound you for a direct answer to my question, I'll ask you to stop heckling.
And I'll ask you to stop harassing me...and tell you I've already answered your question OR I might say..."Like I said"...But will that satisfy you?...OH NO!!!....Not you, you'll keep pestering me.
And we'll both waste time here because we have nothing more pressing to do.
Why is it always the person in the crowd, who may be insulted by lies spouted from some speaker, who is then considered the "heckler"?
I would have responded with........if one of the teachers at the school had had one, the principal wouldn't have had to use her own body as a shield to protect and die. She would have had firepower equal to what the killer had and possibly could have won that fight with a lot less life lost.
You personally may not feel that people NEED a weapon that has more than 10 bullets to a clip.....but consider how many women are killed or assaulted in their own homes.......by intruders or family members. Women, especially if there are children involved or in jeopardy, will empty a gun and keep pulling on an empty trigger until she knows for sure that the danger is passed. I don't know how men react in those types of situations, but I have a 11 rifle that I normally use for shooting into the side of a mountain to scare of a herd of deer or to kill a groundhog, raccoon, or possum. THAT rifle is a semi-automatic......meaning, I load up to 20 bullets, get one into the chamber, and I only have to repeatedly pull that trigger to fire all 20 one after the other before I have to reload. As far as I know, there are NO 'machine gun' types of weapons allowed to be sold here....they have been banned since the 1930's. Everything else that people refer to as 'automatic weapons' are actually SEMI-automatics and you DO have to pull that trigger one pull at a time....it just doesn't have to be reloaded until the clip is empty.....and nearly every handgun works that way that is sold and in households today. There are very few being used that are 'Colt' type that need to have the hammer physically pulled back for each bullet fired.
When a vehicle pulls into the yard that I don't recognize, I don't wait for someone to get out of the vehicle and knock on my door. I greet them first...walk out on the porch, rifle in hand. I have it handy even when I'm in the garden tending my vegetables.
People are crazy........I'm cautious.........
You really feel you need to be armed when tending your garden?
And you have no idea what might have happened if any of the teachers had been armed. Armed teachers......where do I start my list of things that could go wrong....
I'm cautious, Josh.......you also have no idea.....rabies have come back in this area pretty strongly. When I'm outside, I never know when a crazed raccoon, possum, or even a cat or dog will show up.
are linked by the words "shall not be infringed". We each define our own needs and it is not up to you or me to define the needs of anyone else.
What kind of car do you have? Do you NEED it or would a 15 year old GM or Ford get the job done?
Do you NEED living quarters of the size you presently have or could you get by with a two room shack with an outhouse?
One's NEEDS are relative.
Getting back to needing a large capacity magazine, if you want a firearm for defense you have the need for the capacity. If you get up in the middle of the night and grab a firearm because someone is kicking your door in you usually don't have the luxury of grabbing up several additional magazines and since it often takes several shots to incapacitate someone a five or seven shot capacity will leave you wanting more if as is too often the case there are three or more persons involved in the break in. Even a well practiced marksman is likely to have several misses in a gun battle. Why do our soldiers and our police NEED large capacity magazines in their weapons?
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson`s "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764