What Should Happen To The Person/s That Sells Guns Illegally

[OKTexas]

To people like this violent thug killer, Devin Patrick Kelley, that viciously murders multiple people in cold blood for no reason whatsoever?

Well, they has to trace whomever sold him these weapons. But once they has found the person or organization that has sold him the weapons, that they will be charged with accessory to murder since it was sold to him illegally. The gun seller will be considered as a co-conspirator to find out what was the intent of the deal. Was it for profit or not.

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

• The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
• If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reusrather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement. Accessory (legal term) - Wikipedia

The USAF admitted they didn't enter his conviction for DV in the NICS data base. You going to charge them as an accessory because of an administrative error. It wasn't the seller fault.


.

And so the government had set it up for him to buy weapons? Military put in all information when servicemen are court-martial. I can understand it if it were the 1940's when everything was done by paper. When you put the info into the computer, you have to put in the reason of the discharge so that the offender doesn't collects any benefits like medical and grants. Some unhonorable discharge allows them to receive some VA benefits. It depends on the purpose. That has to be put into the system.

He just got a bad conduct discharge, but the services don't enter in the NICS data base except in certain circumstances. They should have in this one, but didn't.


.

 

[Aletheia4u]

To people like this violent thug killer, Devin Patrick Kelley, that viciously murders multiple people in cold blood for no reason whatsoever?

Well, they has to trace whomever sold him these weapons. But once they has found the person or organization that has sold him the weapons, that they will be charged with accessory to murder since it was sold to him illegally. The gun seller will be considered as a co-conspirator to find out what was the intent of the deal. Was it for profit or not.

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

• The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
• If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reusrather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement. Accessory (legal term) - Wikipedia

“His parents had him on high doses of ‘psych’ meds from 6th to 9th grade, the time I knew him,” said the student, who only wished to be identified as Reid.

The student also said Kelley often posted on his Facebook page about his assault rifle and atheism, and that “a lot of friends quit talking to him by senior year.” Texas church shooter Devin Patrick Kelley served in Air Force, was court-martialed for assaulting wife, child


The USAF admitted they didn't enter his conviction for DV in the NICS data base. You going to charge them as an accessory because of an administrative error. It wasn't the seller fault.


.

And so the government had set it up for him to buy weapons? Military put in all information when servicemen are court-martial. I can understand it if it were the 1940's when everything was done by paper. When you put the info into the computer, you have to put in the reason of the discharge so that the offender doesn't collects any benefits like medical and grants. Some unhonorable discharge allows them to receive some VA benefits. It depends on the purpose. That has to be put into the system.

He just got a bad conduct discharge, but the services don't enter in the NICS data base except in certain circumstances. They should have in this one, but didn't.


.

 

[Aletheia4u]

“His parents had him on high doses of ‘psych’ meds from 6th to 9th grade, the time I knew him,” said the student, who only wished to be identified as Reid.

The student also said Kelley often posted on his Facebook page about his assault rifle and atheism, and that “a lot of friends quit talking to him by senior year.” Texas church shooter Devin Patrick Kelley served in Air Force, was court-martialed for assaulting wife, child

 

[Papageorgio]

That isn’t what I’m saying, I’m saying take away their ability to sell or even have a gun on them by sending them to prison. You see no benefit to sending them to prison? I see no benefit from keeping them out. They broke a law and the gun they illegally sold is used in a murder? You bet they should be locked up and have the surviving family sue him. We are way to soft on crime.

It's EXACTLY what you are saying. Why have or try to make a law if people aren't going to follow it. You just don't like it when your own faulty reasoning is thrown back in your face. I mean why do we have speed limits if people break it all the time? You more than likely break it, or have broken it several times. Fuck it, scrap it. It's useless. People are murdered every single day, yet murder is illegal. Fuck it, scrap it... let everyone go Wild West and do an eye for an eye and kill whomever we want. People steal all the time despite theft being illegal...

I can do this all day. Can you come up with a better argument?

Then why have any gun laws?

I asked you to come up with a better argument, seems like you are tapping out.

I have no clue as to what the hell your argument is. I say throw the guy that sells guns illegally in jail, hell if I know what your stupid claim is, just let them stay out?

I was very specific about it. I'm sorry you can't read.

My position is you do the crime, you do the time. I don’t give a fuck if you agree or don’t agree. Selling guns illegally and they get linked to a crime should get you some prison time. That is a form of gun control that would be effective. Nears as I can tell you don’t want to do anything to them except tell them they can’t do it that and they are bad for doing it. Which gets you absolutely nothing, except more people breaking laws.

 

[Slade3200]

Im wouldn't support measures like that... Like I said I own guns and don't think it should be hard or expensive to buy sell or use them as long as you are a law abiding citizen. NYC does have crazy tough laws on gun owners. As far as I understand that was a decision that city leadership and the voters made, which they have the right to do. I also recall NYC as being one of the most dangerous cities in the US a few decades ago and now it has made tremendous strides. I don't know if there is a correlation to the gun laws or if that was part of the program, but it is interesting.

Yep and it's backsliding since commiecrat administrations have been in power for a while. IL requires a Firearms Ownership License just to own a gun, how's that working for Chicago? The problem is not legal guns in flyover country. The problem is illegal guns and criminal activity in the regressive utopias, ie major cities, that's were most gun deaths occur.


.

I hear what you are saying but the violence in Chicago is a result of poverty and gangs, not a result of strict gun laws. Are you trying to imply that the strict gun laws are causing the violence to spike?

Property crime has gone down since McDonald v. City of Chicago. More people have hand guns in their homes.

Check the numbers since 2010

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html


.

Thats great, I'd never advocate a situation that would hinder the right for law abiding Americans to have a gun in their homes to protect themselves. Especially in dangerous areas. I'm not sure if the situation is as simple as more guns less crime, but it is definitely worth looking at when weighing in all the factors that contribute the the crime, safety and prosperity of our communities.

I'm not sure if the situation is as simple as more guns less crime

There's actually a book out by that title (portion in bold), you might want to check it out. A lot of common sense and good stats in it.


.

I understand the theory, but I don't really agree with it. While i'm not for taking guns away, i'm also not for promoting more on the streets. I find that more often than not I encounter complete douchebags, especially in situations where people are drinking and thinking about more of those type of people being armed is not a comforting thought. I can easily see more of the interactions that lead to fist fights and black eyes moving to drunk shootings and I hope that never becomes the case. I'm fine with more armed security in soft zones as long as they are trained and responsible people.

 

[Lewdog]

It's EXACTLY what you are saying. Why have or try to make a law if people aren't going to follow it. You just don't like it when your own faulty reasoning is thrown back in your face. I mean why do we have speed limits if people break it all the time? You more than likely break it, or have broken it several times. Fuck it, scrap it. It's useless. People are murdered every single day, yet murder is illegal. Fuck it, scrap it... let everyone go Wild West and do an eye for an eye and kill whomever we want. People steal all the time despite theft being illegal...

I can do this all day. Can you come up with a better argument?

Then why have any gun laws?

I asked you to come up with a better argument, seems like you are tapping out.

I have no clue as to what the hell your argument is. I say throw the guy that sells guns illegally in jail, hell if I know what your stupid claim is, just let them stay out?

I was very specific about it. I'm sorry you can't read.

My position is you do the crime, you do the time. I don’t give a fuck if you agree or don’t agree. Selling guns illegally and they get linked to a crime should get you some prison time. That is a form of gun control that would be effective. Nears as I can tell you don’t want to do anything to them except tell them they can’t do it that and they are bad for doing it. Which gets you absolutely nothing, except more people breaking laws.

Wrong. I was VERY clear of the penalties, and it wasn't just telling them not to do it again.

I had to laugh while reading your post... because you have no idea how much you sound like Hillary's proposal to allow victims of gun violence to sue the manufacturers...

 

[Lewdog]

Yep and it's backsliding since commiecrat administrations have been in power for a while. IL requires a Firearms Ownership License just to own a gun, how's that working for Chicago? The problem is not legal guns in flyover country. The problem is illegal guns and criminal activity in the regressive utopias, ie major cities, that's were most gun deaths occur.


.

I hear what you are saying but the violence in Chicago is a result of poverty and gangs, not a result of strict gun laws. Are you trying to imply that the strict gun laws are causing the violence to spike?

Property crime has gone down since McDonald v. City of Chicago. More people have hand guns in their homes.

Check the numbers since 2010

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html


.

Thats great, I'd never advocate a situation that would hinder the right for law abiding Americans to have a gun in their homes to protect themselves. Especially in dangerous areas. I'm not sure if the situation is as simple as more guns less crime, but it is definitely worth looking at when weighing in all the factors that contribute the the crime, safety and prosperity of our communities.

I'm not sure if the situation is as simple as more guns less crime

There's actually a book out by that title (portion in bold), you might want to check it out. A lot of common sense and good stats in it.


.

I understand the theory, but I don't really agree with it. While i'm not for taking guns away, i'm also not for promoting more on the streets. I find that more often than not I encounter complete douchebags, especially in situations where people are drinking and thinking about more of those type of people being armed is not a comforting thought. I can easily see more of the interactions that lead to fist fights and black eyes moving to drunk shootings and I hope that never becomes the case. I'm fine with more armed security in soft zones as long as they are trained and responsible people.

Yeah I forget the exact stat, but it is something like the average is 5 guns for every American citizen.

 

[OKTexas]

Yep and it's backsliding since commiecrat administrations have been in power for a while. IL requires a Firearms Ownership License just to own a gun, how's that working for Chicago? The problem is not legal guns in flyover country. The problem is illegal guns and criminal activity in the regressive utopias, ie major cities, that's were most gun deaths occur.


.

I hear what you are saying but the violence in Chicago is a result of poverty and gangs, not a result of strict gun laws. Are you trying to imply that the strict gun laws are causing the violence to spike?

Property crime has gone down since McDonald v. City of Chicago. More people have hand guns in their homes.

Check the numbers since 2010

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html


.

Thats great, I'd never advocate a situation that would hinder the right for law abiding Americans to have a gun in their homes to protect themselves. Especially in dangerous areas. I'm not sure if the situation is as simple as more guns less crime, but it is definitely worth looking at when weighing in all the factors that contribute the the crime, safety and prosperity of our communities.

I'm not sure if the situation is as simple as more guns less crime

There's actually a book out by that title (portion in bold), you might want to check it out. A lot of common sense and good stats in it.


.

I understand the theory, but I don't really agree with it. While i'm not for taking guns away, i'm also not for promoting more on the streets. I find that more often than not I encounter complete douchebags, especially in situations where people are drinking and thinking about more of those type of people being armed is not a comforting thought. I can easily see more of the interactions that lead to fist fights and black eyes moving to drunk shootings and I hope that never becomes the case. I'm fine with more armed security in soft zones as long as they are trained and responsible people.

Most States don't allow CHLs to be in bars while armed, but you're right it boils down to responsible people.


.

 

[OKTexas]

I hear what you are saying but the violence in Chicago is a result of poverty and gangs, not a result of strict gun laws. Are you trying to imply that the strict gun laws are causing the violence to spike?

Property crime has gone down since McDonald v. City of Chicago. More people have hand guns in their homes.

Check the numbers since 2010

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Chicago-Illinois.html


.

Thats great, I'd never advocate a situation that would hinder the right for law abiding Americans to have a gun in their homes to protect themselves. Especially in dangerous areas. I'm not sure if the situation is as simple as more guns less crime, but it is definitely worth looking at when weighing in all the factors that contribute the the crime, safety and prosperity of our communities.

I'm not sure if the situation is as simple as more guns less crime

There's actually a book out by that title (portion in bold), you might want to check it out. A lot of common sense and good stats in it.


.

I understand the theory, but I don't really agree with it. While i'm not for taking guns away, i'm also not for promoting more on the streets. I find that more often than not I encounter complete douchebags, especially in situations where people are drinking and thinking about more of those type of people being armed is not a comforting thought. I can easily see more of the interactions that lead to fist fights and black eyes moving to drunk shootings and I hope that never becomes the case. I'm fine with more armed security in soft zones as long as they are trained and responsible people.

Yeah I forget the exact stat, but it is something like the average is 5 guns for every American citizen.

Nope, more like 1.3/1, 372 million people to 500 million guns.



.

 

[Papageorgio]

Then why have any gun laws?

I asked you to come up with a better argument, seems like you are tapping out.

I have no clue as to what the hell your argument is. I say throw the guy that sells guns illegally in jail, hell if I know what your stupid claim is, just let them stay out?

I was very specific about it. I'm sorry you can't read.

My position is you do the crime, you do the time. I don’t give a fuck if you agree or don’t agree. Selling guns illegally and they get linked to a crime should get you some prison time. That is a form of gun control that would be effective. Nears as I can tell you don’t want to do anything to them except tell them they can’t do it that and they are bad for doing it. Which gets you absolutely nothing, except more people breaking laws.

Wrong. I was VERY clear of the penalties, and it wasn't just telling them not to do it again.

I had to laugh while reading your post... because you have no idea how much you sound like Hillary's proposal to allow victims of gun violence to sue the manufacturers...

I don’t think that you should be sued for legal transactions. Never did I state that. We are talking about illegal transactions. You may want to go look up the difference between legal and illegal. Obviously, you still haven’t learned to communicate.

 

[Lewdog]

I asked you to come up with a better argument, seems like you are tapping out.

I have no clue as to what the hell your argument is. I say throw the guy that sells guns illegally in jail, hell if I know what your stupid claim is, just let them stay out?

I was very specific about it. I'm sorry you can't read.

My position is you do the crime, you do the time. I don’t give a fuck if you agree or don’t agree. Selling guns illegally and they get linked to a crime should get you some prison time. That is a form of gun control that would be effective. Nears as I can tell you don’t want to do anything to them except tell them they can’t do it that and they are bad for doing it. Which gets you absolutely nothing, except more people breaking laws.

Wrong. I was VERY clear of the penalties, and it wasn't just telling them not to do it again.

I had to laugh while reading your post... because you have no idea how much you sound like Hillary's proposal to allow victims of gun violence to sue the manufacturers...

I don’t think that you should be sued for legal transactions. Never did I state that. We are talking about illegal transactions. You may want to go look up the difference between legal and illegal. Obviously, you still haven’t learned to communicate.

I said you sound like her, I didn't say you said the same thing as her. Try to keep up.

 

[Papageorgio]

I have no clue as to what the hell your argument is. I say throw the guy that sells guns illegally in jail, hell if I know what your stupid claim is, just let them stay out?

I was very specific about it. I'm sorry you can't read.

My position is you do the crime, you do the time. I don’t give a fuck if you agree or don’t agree. Selling guns illegally and they get linked to a crime should get you some prison time. That is a form of gun control that would be effective. Nears as I can tell you don’t want to do anything to them except tell them they can’t do it that and they are bad for doing it. Which gets you absolutely nothing, except more people breaking laws.

Wrong. I was VERY clear of the penalties, and it wasn't just telling them not to do it again.

I had to laugh while reading your post... because you have no idea how much you sound like Hillary's proposal to allow victims of gun violence to sue the manufacturers...

I don’t think that you should be sued for legal transactions. Never did I state that. We are talking about illegal transactions. You may want to go look up the difference between legal and illegal. Obviously, you still haven’t learned to communicate.

I said you sound like her, I didn't say you said the same thing as her. Try to keep up.

You seem confused, again. I hope someday you learn to communicate, it would help you out in life.

 

[Papageorgio]

Back to the topic.

People who sell weapons illegally need to face prison and have their ability to own a weapon revoked. We need to let people know that illegally selling of firearms will get you jail time.

 

[Lewdog]

I was very specific about it. I'm sorry you can't read.

My position is you do the crime, you do the time. I don’t give a fuck if you agree or don’t agree. Selling guns illegally and they get linked to a crime should get you some prison time. That is a form of gun control that would be effective. Nears as I can tell you don’t want to do anything to them except tell them they can’t do it that and they are bad for doing it. Which gets you absolutely nothing, except more people breaking laws.

Wrong. I was VERY clear of the penalties, and it wasn't just telling them not to do it again.

I had to laugh while reading your post... because you have no idea how much you sound like Hillary's proposal to allow victims of gun violence to sue the manufacturers...

I don’t think that you should be sued for legal transactions. Never did I state that. We are talking about illegal transactions. You may want to go look up the difference between legal and illegal. Obviously, you still haven’t learned to communicate.

I said you sound like her, I didn't say you said the same thing as her. Try to keep up.

You seem confused, again. I hope someday you learn to communicate, it would help you out in life.

I can communicate perfectly fine... if I couldn't I wouldn't be in the position in life I am currently in. So that leaves one explanation, it involves your comprehension skills.

 

[Dr Grump]

View attachment 159022

Yep
.

ah my old friend John Lott....

 

[Papageorgio]

My position is you do the crime, you do the time. I don’t give a fuck if you agree or don’t agree. Selling guns illegally and they get linked to a crime should get you some prison time. That is a form of gun control that would be effective. Nears as I can tell you don’t want to do anything to them except tell them they can’t do it that and they are bad for doing it. Which gets you absolutely nothing, except more people breaking laws.

Wrong. I was VERY clear of the penalties, and it wasn't just telling them not to do it again.

I had to laugh while reading your post... because you have no idea how much you sound like Hillary's proposal to allow victims of gun violence to sue the manufacturers...

I don’t think that you should be sued for legal transactions. Never did I state that. We are talking about illegal transactions. You may want to go look up the difference between legal and illegal. Obviously, you still haven’t learned to communicate.

I said you sound like her, I didn't say you said the same thing as her. Try to keep up.

You seem confused, again. I hope someday you learn to communicate, it would help you out in life.

I can communicate perfectly fine... if I couldn't I wouldn't be in the position in life I am currently in. So that leaves one explanation, it involves your comprehension skills.

I see you can’t communicate on the topic as you keep diverting.