Quote of the day—Jim Kenney

There are just too many guns on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that.

Jim Kenney
Mayor of Philadelphia
January 8, 2016
Man ambushes, tries to “execute” cop in Philadelphia
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jim Kenney

  1. He’s also the fool who claimed that islamic terrorism has no connection whatsoever to islam.

  2. The stupid is so powerful in that statement I have no way to counter it. It is so dense it has its own gravity.

  3. No, there are too many criminals on the streets, no thanks to the revolving door justice system and lenient prison sentences.

    If we just had the federal government aggressively prosecute “felon in possession of a firearm” charges and we would see a whole cadre of criminals go away.

    It’s not the gun, it’s the criminal that demands focus.

    Oh, and if he thinks he wants to get rid of guns, I agree he is indeed so stupid as to make up his own solar system of dense matter.

    • I can only offer lukewarm support for your first paragraph, when it is apparently a felony under the Lacey Act to violate foreign laws that are no longer in effect (viz: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/alobsterstail.htm)

      Remove a goodly portion (half? three quarters? more?) of the inane felonies in the US code, then simplify the remainder so ordinary people can understand it, and my support would be more strident.

      As to federal “felon in possession” charges – I want them gone as a first step.

      What other right is surrendered if a person commits a crime, and is never to be regained? Well, almost never, since the federal .gov apparently recognizes a presidential pardon as the only path to federal firearms rights restoration? (cf: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/08/how-to-restore-gun-rights-after-a-felony.html)

      If a duly authorized court is convinced that such a ban is appropriate for a particular convicted offender, let them OPENLY and EXPLICITLY apply it, and specify when it ends, if at all.

      In these days being a federal felon covers all sorts of offenses from unintentionally receiving lobster tails in plastic bags through tax evasion to growing certain plants in order to burn them and inhale the smoke. That ALL these federal offenses carry an AUTOMATIC lifetime prohibition on firearm ownership as an unmentioned additional punishment is unconscionable.

      • Not just unconscionable, but blatantly unconstitutional. Not just because the Federal government has no authority to make any of those activities crimes in the first place (let alone felonies) but also because there is no authority in the Constitution to deny felons any Constitutional right once the sentence has been completed.

      • Okay Sendarius, I agree that the “felon in possession” charges are inherently unjust. I agree with the idea that after a person has served time for a crime, they should have all of their rights restored. So, that would include voting, firearms ownership, and no forced tracking of child molesters. I also agree that far too many crimes are convenient excuses to deny civil rights.

        My comment is in response to the idea that there are “too many guns on the streets” which is not the issue. The issue is criminal control, not gun control.

        My simple proposal is that we start with enforcing the laws on the books. The prosecution rate for filling out a form 4473 illegally or for having a firearm as a felon is shockingly low. It is usually dismissed or plea bargained away. However, use of these two criminal activity charges would pull the recidivist criminals out of their community and into longer sentences in federal prisons. Much more likely to make an impression on them then the weak sentences imposed by many states. I live in California and I am fed up with criminals being released due to overcrowding. Build more damn prisons or stop with bogus charges for silly crimes as you suggested.

        So, since the system is messed up, do you have a better proposal for immediately addressing the small cohort of hardened criminals?

        So, I agree with you and Paul Koning that the federal government has overstepped its bounds, but I am offering a solution in the current context. Could I also offer my sincere opinion that EVERY gun law in America is unConstitutional. The states all signed on to the Constitution and it forbids infringement on the RKBA. So, all gun control laws are invalid in my opinion. It is to bad the government rejects that view since it limits its power.

        • My suggested remedy for addressing the problem of hardened criminals usually draws shocked outrage.

          In essence, my proposal is simple: one strike – two strikes – death.

          Get caught & convicted three times committing serious violent crime, and you die. Not in ten or twenty years after ninety bazillion dollars has been spent on prison time, appeals, and lawyers – right now, this afternoon, in the public square. Heck, it wouldn’t even cost much, and you could give the most recent victim (or surviving family members) the option of pulling the trigger.

          Of course, only in essence is it simple. The questions that first need to be answered, including the standards of evidence, the possibility of error, the definition of “serious violent crime”, and others make it somewhat more problematic.

          The non-violent crimes are a harder nut to crack. Lose money to a con-man, and your own cupidity/stupidity makes people question your status as a “true” victim, and by inference, the seriousness of the crime. Do a little “insider trading” – have you even truly committed a crime? Why would you even buy stocks if you didn’t think they would go up?
          Mens rea becomes an issue – what intent was there?
          Thorny problems all, but maybe solvable with enough will.

          • Thank you! I appreciate the response.

            Capital punishment does ensure that there are no future offenses with 100% certainty.

            Guaranteed punishments have a tremendous deterrent effect. I heard that many California criminals left the state when our “three strikes and you are out” law went into effect.

            I too would like to see capital punishment stream-lined. Automatic appeals, narrowly defined eligible crimes, but a finite date set from the initial conviction. For instance, one year to the day from the conviction. It should be more than enough time for an expedited appeal. Oh, and I am old school…lethal injection is too much like a medical procedure and not like it should be. Bring back “Old Sparky”.

    • If we just had the federal government aggressively prosecute “felon in possession of a firearm” charges…

      Reduce the scope of the law to violent felonies and I’ll agree with you. Check kiting (and lobster packaging, as Sendarius noted) should not result in permanent loss of a fundamental right.

  4. It is important to understand Progressive tactics. In this case we get no explanation; there are “just too many” guns, “just” meaning nothing else matters so don’t talk about it. Too many guns for what? That isn’t to be discussed either. It doesn’t matter. There are just too many, so shut up. Whatever the constitution says is hereby invalidated. It’s always argument through vigorous assertion, having no basis in principle, law or observable fact. Put down as idiotic anyone who wishes to introduce moral, rational or principled arguments.

    Using substitution with another articulated right can sometimes be useful;
    “There are just too many books on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that.”

    “There are just too many writers and publishers in America and I think our national government needs to do something about that.”

    “There is just too much representation in Congress and I think our national government needs to do something about that.”

    The problem we now have with the substitution tactic is that more and more Americans would agree that there too many books, too many publishers and writers, and too much representation. If you’re talking to a communist, all arguments fail and it comes down to push verses shove.

    I’ve found that the better your argument, the more people hate you and wish to see you destroyed. It would not be out of line then, to conclude that if no Progressives/authoritarians want you killed, you’re not making the case for liberty. Being a target is a poor goal in and of itself, but it is a fairly good indicator. The oft repeated “everyone who knew him, loved him” said at funerals is never said about a champion of liberty. It’s only said about a weasel.

  5. My feelings run to there being far too many politicians in this country and we need to do something about that.

  6. The only way to remove the “too many guns” that are on the streets would be to have the “national government” sweep the streets with many, many more guns in hand. I suspect that Jimmy may not like that solution, either.

    • Then again, perhaps he does. After all, isn’t this the city where some crooks were removed from some house using tanks?

  7. It is clear there are far too many criminals on our streets why doesn’t the government care about that ? Crime existed for millennia before guns, so the idea that if guns go away so will crime is delusional.

Comments are closed.