Conservatives, what is your solution to gun violence?

Ok, so I often hear the argument that guns don't kill people, people do, and that tightening gun control laws will only cause more crime. My question to all the conservatives is what actions should the government take to lower violent crime in America? Or, is a high level of violent crime just an inevitable evil that exists in our country?

Supposing you were president, what actions would you take to lower violent crime rate in America?

 

The violent crime rate has been declining for over a decade due to Hotspotting.


This would be my solution for limiting gun violence, solving our energy issues, fixing capital allocation, ending the MIC, ect..

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ost-when-we-lost-religion.html#post1062202131

 

From what I understand, violent crime has been declining because of 3 times you are out laws. By keeping repeat violent criminals off the street you will greatly reduce violent crime.

What is Hotspotting?

If I were President I would quit threatening law abiding citizens with oppression of their rights and let things calm down and lower the pressure. It would be nice to have a president on our side for a change.

 

I don't really understand that first sentence (I think you have a typo in there)...I am also curious what hotspotting is...

So as president you would do nothing to decrease crime rate? It doesn't necessarily have to be with new gun laws, it can be any law that you think would decrease violent crime rate.

 

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2012/04/10/spend-less-get-more-the-best-solution-for-any-health-network/

 

First, I would look at where the troubled kinds of crime are being committed. If I were worried about assault with a deadly weapon, I would look at where the assault was taking place, the reason why the assault was taking place, and what the demographic of the assaulter/assaulted were.

From a few different websites and statistics, I have concluded that it is mainly black on black violence of males between the ages of 15 and 27. The ages can vary a little, but this demographic is usually in inner cities, from lower income houses, single parent (usually mother), and a disenfranchised group. These kids are growing up in a society that embraces violence without a strong male father figure except other males their own age. They don't look at the consequences of their actions long term, but only short term. If one of these youths "pops a cap" in someone else's ass, they are momentarily feared and respected because of their defiance of the law and culling someone that opposes them.

What I believe needs to happen is a three fold attack on violent assaults and murders for inner city youth.

One, make there be a social incentive for a mother and father to stay together to raise children. I believe that most of the people on this forum grew up in middle or upper middle class families with a strong male and strong female figure within the house hold. The male figure was able to curb the violent impulses of the youth and teach them how to act in civil society. Many kids in inner cities that don't have this father figure look to themselves, television, and youth around them as male figures that embrace violence and hatred of another group.

Two, I would stop glamorizing violence in entertainment. I like there next shooting movie as much as the next testosterone filled male, but where do we draw the line? There have been four Die Hard movies so far, each being more violent than the last. There is a fifth coming out that depicts a father figure and a younger male blowing everything to kingdom come. Is this what we are trying to teach the next generation? Is this the example we are setting for our children and young parents?

Three, I would encourage community activism. This can be through church functions, volunteer groups, study groups, or even something as simple as being a mentor for the kid next door. Before telecommunication advances in the 70's, 80's and 90's, we used to walk out our door and bring a pie to our neighbors. We talked, discussed, and came together as a community. Knowing your neighbor was a big part of the society america grew up in, and I think we have lost that as a society. When was the last time you spoke to your neighbor? If you can't remember, go know on their door, introduce yourself, and get to know them! It is fun, enlightening, and gives you a sense of the community and people around you. They stop being a *******, commie conservative, idiot knuckle dragger, or any other derogative term you can think of, and they just become people.

I believe we as a society have changed for the worse, and that we are being more and more polarized as the days goes by. It is an us vs them mentality when really, it is just us. We are citizens of a country that is for the people, by the people, and we are the people. As spoon as we create a society that is more polarized than we already are, something very very bad is going to happen and I don't want to have to pick sides. I love my fellow countrymen and I want us to all be happy and free, however we choose to pursue that goal.

If you want to read an opinion piece about strep one above, I have included the link at the bottom of this post.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337929/war-against-black-men-lee-habeeb

 

We have generation after generation living of welfare, causing areas where you have exreme poverty. Where you have poverty you have higher crime, where you have higher crime you have more gun crimes(apple doesn't fall far from the tree).
We also have generation after generation of kids having babies. In these situations the father is generally absent. Children are no longer getting the correct upbringing. To pile ontop of that, you can no longer punish your children the way you should, the line that divides right from wrong is now too blurred for them and consiquence(spelling?) Is almost non-existant.
All this electronic gadgets with a world of violence at their fingertips.

As the country changes, as we get more technologicaly advanced, as our culture advances, it might be a good idea to look at our nations timeline to see what could be causing such a social and emotional shutdown in a lot of these individuals. The guns have been there all along, everything else around them has been changing dramaticly.

 

So you have diagnosed the problem, or what you believe is the problem, so how would you go about fixing this problem?

 

And you would believe that the gun is the problem? The gun makes somebody kill? It is the way our society has become. I am not saying I have a solution, but people like you just like to jump at the quickest and first thing you see, it makes you point your finger at law abiding citizens that unlike you, are not blinded by the crap that the media shows. Wether you ban guns or not, the psychos are still out there, because the guns are not making people into psychos. Banning guns only lowers the gun murders, not the overall murders.

 

lol chill bro, I'm not suggesting we ban guns. I know you read my other post, so you think I am adamantly against guns, but I'm not (at least not anymore). In fact, after that little online debate, I'm beginning to be swayed. However, I just would like to know what solution conservatives suggest for solving the problem. At least liberals are TRYING to do something about it (even though it may not exactly be the right choice, you can't say they aren't trying). I'm probably going to get flamed for that last comment, but it is true. Conservatives are simply saying "don't take away the guns, they aren't the problem". I can kind of agree with that, but i want to know what they propose to do as an alternative. Or do you just suggest we do nothing and accept the fact that people are going to kill people?

 

Its a very touchy subject, first the correct problem needs to be identified, but they only talk about guns, I do not consider myself a conservitive, I consider my self a realist. They are focusing too much on the tool and not the mind, and people like me are the ones endangered of paying for it. The media on reports on gun violence, because it is "dramatic and entertaining", but it only represents a minute sliver of the world of legal gun owners. They don't report on people using a gun responsibly and no one gets hurt, because it would be boring.

 

I think you make a good point. I just wish that conservatives and people that lean right on this issue would stop focusing on trying to stop anti gun legislation and instead focus on a real solution that will work. I know that you will probably say that it just isn't right to do that, but if the liberals are wrong, within a year or two, it will show up with the statistics. After that little debate, I am no longer as firmly against guns as before, but at the same time, I don't like the fact that people are fighting for gun rights instead of trying to find a solution to the problem. Every time I watch debates on TV, conservatives just bring up a few statistics about lower gun rate being worse for violent crime (I do address that in the next paragraph), rather than saying "This is the problem, and this is the solution". They often don't even say what the real problem is, all they say is that it isn't guns. The democrats have at least offered an attempt at a solution, whether it will work or not is unknown right now.

While the solution that the left has may not be the best, it does seem to target the tool. Now, I agree that people kill people, but it can also be argued that guns are the tool used to kill people (I'm not going to go into my whole debate again). My point is, people that lean right on this issue tend to say that guns have NOTHING to do with the problem, and I would disagree with that. They also say that increasing gun restrictions will make violent crime go up. I disagree with that by sheer logic, but I admit that I could be wrong on that. The point is, sometimes this ban helps reduce violent crime (i.e. the UK), sometimes it increases violent crime (poverty stricken areas of the U.S.), and sometimes it does nothing (don't have an example of this, but this is the only other possibility, and I'm sure there is SOME example lol).

 

Well I am not a conservative. For a moderate libertarian perspective I could address your hypothetical, of me being president what my proposal would start with.

1. End war on drugs stop wasting money and resources treating a medical issue as a criminal issue.
Legalize and tax the less dangerous non-processed "drugs" like marijuana and coca leaf. Allowing for US companies to legally purchase those products from the poverty stricken farmers in Central and South America. That should deliver a near fatal blow to the cartels that have turned the Americas into a war-zone. Appoint a board of medical, legal experts, and economists to study and address the most dangerous processed drugs. That will treat them as a medical issue and not allow the cartels to continue to profit from their use. Combine the DEA and the FDA to streamline and reduce cost. Give the panel I formed a leadership role in the new agency.

2.With the increase in available space created by the ending of the war on drugs. We could keep violent offenders in prison longer. While increasing enforcement of violent crimes and penalties for the offenders.

3.Return police officers to the neighborhoods actually meeting and talking with the people who are not criminals. Where a officer actually knows the people they are helping. As well as those who may be causing trouble. Let the police and the citizens work together instead of fearing each other.

4.Increase funding for violence prevention by grass-root organizations that actually work to stop gang violence and other problems in the communities in which they live.

5.Provide extra programs for troubled teens with education and career planning.

6.Increase school hours till after 5pm and eliminate long summer breaks. That would allow more time for learning a increased curriculum. As well as limiting the time children must be unsupervised at home with both parents working.

7. Insure more good trades are available for those who do not attend college. Even if it means adopting protectionist trade restrictions. Massive reform to immigration laws allowing needed workers to come here legally. Offer a path to legalization to those who have committed no other crime but migrating here illegally. Offer amnesty to whistle-blowers on companies hiring illegals. Increase enforcement and penalties for both hiring illegals and not following other labor laws.

8.Insure that a humane mental Heath system is available for all Americans from the schools to the homeless on the streets. With people encouraged not punished for choosing to seek treatment.

9.Legalizing prostitution licensing and taxing the industry. Insure they are given medical exams and abide by age and health restrictions. That would put the workers in a safer environment and eliminate sex trafficking of underage and abducted individuals.


10. End the war on terror the government should lead by example. Using drones, and putting 10's of thousands of troops in harms way. To create more enemies than we had before. If violence and murder is wrong then we should not do it ourselves. Yes the US has a culture of violence and it starts at the top. The biggest indication to me that we as a people were full of hatred and vengeance. Was the the celebration of millions and dancing in the street because our best trained soldiers murdered a unarmed man in his pajamas. Was he evil? Yes, he was one of the worst. If we become who we are fighting what have we won?

 

Nice, I love all your ideas, by far the best I've heard out of anybody. I especially like points 1, 9 and 10. Bravo bro

Now, I would like to challenge some of you ideas (as a libertarian, I am a big fan of competition...especially with ideas). Anyways, would you address gun regulation at all? The only point that you didn't mention is gun regulation itself. I do think that you did an excellent job at addressing some of that actual root causes of violent crime, but what about regulations? One point that I would add to you list is improving the regulations that we already have (rather than adding new regulations). I read in another post a guy said that 68,000 people were denied firearms by the NCIS, yet only 68 were prosecuted. He doesn't give very good facts on what happened to the other 67,932 people, but he just wonders how many of them were able to get guns through friends, family, etc.

My question is, would you be opposed to getting more strict on current regulation or adding regulations to reduce people getting guns through friends, families and other illegal sources? Would you be opposed to things such as requiring character references, a more in depth background check and a psychological examination before getting a gun? If so, why or why not?

 

Thank you, it always makes me wonder why people try to treat the symptoms rather than the disease.

I considered that part of #2 what we could do with the increased room in prison. The 20,000 something gun laws we have were never strictly enforced. If you go back to the incident that caused the Brady Bill. The man who shot Reagan. He had stalked pres. Carter for years. He was caught with a weapon at a airport I believe been
awhile since I read that. He was let off the hook by the DA. If he would have been put in prison he would have never been able to shoot Reagan. I would insist all current laws were enforced before adding more. I could be for closing the individual sales loophole(gun show loophole) if it can be done without adding expense on legal owners. I would also like to give non-violent felons a path to have full citizenship returned(getting back their rights) until we enforce the rules we have, more would just add confusion to a already confused situation. I have seen the same numbers on the background check but I believe that was just those who lied on the paperwork. I believe that is felony in itself. I would assume the rest other than the 68 faced no punishment. There have been almost 1 million rejected background checks. Some were possible by mistake most were rejected for legit reasons. I do not believe they were punished at all.

I could be for
increased penalties for allowing access to restricted persons. As well as penalties for failure to properly
secure their weapons. Most other restictions should come from the state or local level. The 2nd was originally meant to restrict the federal not the state from passing restrictions on the people. Each state has the right to decide for themselves. We are talking about a right not a privilege. So I would be opposed to needing a reference. We are innocent till proven guilty so making people have to earn a right is not a option to me. The background check should include all people who are prohibited from ownership. There should be a appeal process to insure they have not been wrongly placed on the list. The mental health checks not only place undue burden on those wishing to exercise the 2nd amendment rights it is also a privacy issue. Those who have their rights removed should only be done by due-process. If you put a single person or panel incharge of who gets rights and who doesn't it would be prone to abuse. I can think of lots of ways to make society "safer" resricting rights or just adding expense and inconvenience.
If the police could search whoever they wanted at anytime we could prevent more crime. Is that worth losing freedom? Should cars have a device like many 18 wheelers than prevent going over 75? What about a breathalyzer on every vehicle? Freedom is sometimes abused, but do we remove it from everyone for the actions of a few? If we address the root causes I believe we solve a large part of the problem. At the very least or kids will be smarter and have better futures. If you remove the inner city
violence from are homicide rate, we are pretty much at the same rate of most other 1st world countries. The war on drugs and income inequality are the main reasons for that in my opinion. Gun control is no cure it is only as effective as it's enforcement. Of the 20,000 laws we have none has been shown to reduce violent crime or homicide. I believe it is time to take on the cause not the symptom.

 

You make some good points here as well. In the end, this really comes down to a matter of opinion and interpreting the facts, as you say (and I agree with), there are always trade offs. If we allow everybody to have guns, some people are going to use them to kill. If you take guns away, you strip people of the right to defend themselves. Same thing goes for welfare. While I hate the welfare system, and I don't think anybody should get free handouts, it has been proven that lower income areas are obviously more prone to violent crimes. So if you give them money, you (*)(*)(*)(*) me off cause I don't think they deserve it, but if you don't, then you (*)(*)(*)(*) me off cause violent crime rises. I think in the end it comes down to how people interpret the facts and what people consider a "fair" trade off. Btw, I would not be opposed to breathalyzers in cars, (I find the extra two seconds is worth the tradeoff of possibly saving thousands of peoples lives), but that's just me. I think the root of all the causes is the way that kids are being brought up these days though. Many of them get poor educations and are fed beliefs that are not only erroneous, but detrimental to both themselves and society (such as the belief that they are purely a product of their environment and it can't be overcome...I see this all the time in kids and it makes me furious cause I know it came from their parents and community saying it as a cop out for not working hard). The problem is, a truly utopian society can and will never exist because we enjoy freedoms. Even though we hate problems such as poverty, gun violence and a deeply divided country on many major issues, they will always exist as long as people have their freedoms.

 

Freedom can be dangerous it is better than the alternative. I actually think the problem with welfare is not how much we spend but how it is given. It should be earned with training and even working for the money. Welfare is not going to solve income inequality the amount we give I can not figure out how they live off of it. Income redistribution in the US is from young to old not rich to poor. What we need are decent paying jobs you can provide for your family between outsourcing and competion from undocumented migrants most of the lower middle class trades are gone. It does mean cheaper goods for middle class on up citizens. Yet it comes at the expense of the poor. With more people being added to their ranks all the time. I grew up in the inner-city the only people we seen with money were drug dealers that is the "easy" way to have money you think. Till the police destroy your life or someone kills you to get it a even easier way. Some kids do make it but most fall through the cracks and bring society down with them. Some people are not willing or able to go to college we need to insure they can "earn" decent money because we really don't give much and that is expensive. We will never have a utopia that is correct, even if we lose our freedom. We will still have danger even without it. Most problems are complicated that is why the government tries band-aid solutions. The real fixes are not what they want. Both parties take rights from different angles they almost never give them back. If you will notice the solutions from both sides blame different protections of the bill of rights as the problem. One side blames the 2nd the other side blames the 1st neither is the cause of our problems.

 

Sorry, but crime isn't going to go down to levels prior to the early 1960's. No president can fix it. High capicity rifles and handguns were not popular or in any great numbers prior to the late 1980's and crime started to go way up in the early 1960's. Mass shootings with AR's are good for media ratings, but banning them will have no positive impact on crime or public safety.

To really fix the problem, #1---punish the felon. Most of the court rulings and laws that mollycoddle prisoners, reduce their punishments and allow endless appeals should be abolished. These bad laws and rulings came from progressives starting in the late 1950's. All repeat violent felons should be exucuted after at least their 3rd violent conviction. This is both "fair and speedy."

#2, phase out the welfare state. End all welfare for all but the most helpless. Eliminate or reduce labor and environmental laws that are the real cause of job loss here. Instead of throwing money and benefits at the lazy poor---allow them to work at a low paying job. This may cause beads of sweat to appear on their previously non-productive brows, but that's life---that's called "fairness."

 

Here, to confuse your head a little bit more:
Counting Mexico’s Guns | FactCheck.org
According to it, the number of US guns recovered in Mexico is lower than the 90% that the US administration claims, and higher than the 17% that Fox claims. Like someone said: There are three kinds of lies: lies, (*)(*)(*)(*) lies, and statistics.

Here's a very interesting link about recent issues with PR firearms law:
caribbeanbusinesspr.com - Changes in store for Puerto Rico’s strict gun laws
Quote:
Puerto Rico’s strict weapons law will be brought in line with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, but penalties for committing a crime with a firearm will be hiked and the use of ammunition limited, according to island Justice Department officials.
<SNIP>
Despite some of the tightest firearms restrictions in the United States, Puerto Rico also has one of the highest homicide rates, with drug-related gun violence blamed for the majority of the killings.
I can't tell you what's the current law. But, the last time I checked (a couple of years ago), there were 4 types of gun licenses in PR. All require fingerprints and a lengthy background check and are often arbitrarily denied. The 4 types are:
1. License to posses: You can have the gun in your house only, no exceptions. Furthermore, you're limited to 1 box of ammo per year.
2. Hunting license: Like #1, but it also allows you to carry long firearms while engaged in hunting.
3. Sport shooting license: It allows you to take the gun from your house straight to the shooting range and back, with no detours allowed. It lifts the limit on ammo purchases, but requires you to be an active member of a gun club.
4. License to carry: Costs about $1,000 to get and is only approved to businessmen or people that handle large amounts of money.
All licenses have to be renewed periodically (3 years IIRC). The police department has the authority to enter your house at any time to verify that the gun is properly secured and they can seize the firearms and revoke the license if they determine that you're not meeting any of their rules and regulations, even if you didn't commit a crime.

Contrast that to Pennsylvania, where I live, where you can go to a gun store, swipe your credit card, and take the gun home after an instant background check. You don't need a license to have a gun in your house or in your place of business and guns don't have to be registered. A license to carry costs $25, is good for 5 years, and is granted to anyone without a criminal record. A significant amount of citizens carry firearms daily (including yours truly), and yet, the bloodshed that many predicted hasn't materialized. The beauty of allowing concealed carry, is that it benefits both the people who choose to carry guns and the people who don't. The criminal can't tell who is armed and who isn't, so they resort mainly to property crime, like burglaries and theft, instead of violent crimes, like robbery, assault, and carjackings.

I grew up in Puerto Rico, and have lived in Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The two states where I felt safest (PA & FL) have liberal gun laws, whereas the two places where I encountered the most crime (PR & NJ) have very restrictive laws. PR should loosen its gun regulations on law abiding citizens, while at the same time, imposing lengthy mandatory jail sentences for those convicted of committing crimes while in possession of a firearm. I like Florida's 10-20-Life law.
Florida 10-20-LIFE -- Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences (http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/ - broken link)
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/10-20-life.GIF (broken link)

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/u-s-...uld-best-solution-puerto-2.html#ixzz2IvVFDdgZ

 

The eighty twenty rule is also called the Pareto Principle.

 

I completely agree with your welfare thing, I hate the way it works. That being said, my idea of an "ideal" welfare would be one that is progressive. What I mean is, suppose a person loses their job, or is having a tough time and needs welfare. Instead of saying "we'll give you this amount of money til you're back on your feet" or "we'll just bump you up to the poverty line", my idea would involve seeing where a person is, and giving them X amount of dollars as help. Then I would take that money and decrease the amount that they get at a fixed rate so that within at least two years they were down to nothing.

E.g. Suppose I just lost my job, and I have 2 kids (or I move, or whatever). So I go and apply for government and they say "Ok, we'll give you $2,000 and reduce it by $100 (or 5%) per month for the next 20 months."

Now, the person has a reasonable safety net for at least the next couple of months, but they will eventually have to get a job to supplement their welfare income. It also gives people incentives to get a job quicker. I am perfectly ok with giving people money if they are at least working and trying to get out of the welfare system. I also think this system would give people a strong incentive to get a job quicker. The way that the welfare system used to work (and for all I know, it may still be this way), was that they just bumped people up to the poverty line. But that means that ever dollar earned is a dollar less they get for free, so if they can only make say $17,000, but the government bumps them up to $18,000 or whatever no matter what, then they would be better off not working at all. Any comments or criticisms of my approach? Also, what section in this forum would be the best to post this idea for comments, criticisms and critiques on it.

 

25 year minimum for owning a gun illegally, you dont have to even use the gun one time, just owning it alone is enough.

make being a gang member a huge federal offence, 20 years minimum as gangs are nothing but criminals anyways.

using a gun in a crime, fired or not, even if you didnt even hit or kill anyone....automatic life in prison

make selling a gun or weapon illegally a criminal offense with a minimum of 25 years and no parole

if you want to sell your gun privately you must have to do a background check on the buyer, and the deal must take place at a FFL dealer. also make it to where you will not be charged for the background check either way.



harsher punishments on the true dangers, trying to make it hard for law abiding citizens is not gonna do anything to the criminals.

 

I am not a conservative by any means, but I will answer the question because I favor gun ownership:

1. Mental Health
2. Public Health
3. Measures to reduce poverty

We have the money for healthcare and food for the needy.

 

Our crime rate has been decreasing since the early 1990s. It's currently at early 1960s levels. The federal government has no legitimate role in this. It should be up to the states. The states should continue what they have been doing--harshly punish the use of guns in violent crimes. It's working.

 

Well...This is a complicated problem.
Firstly....
The families of the poor are the starting point for the evils we have to fight.
Poor young people generally use sex as their primary recreation. Poor people often can't afford, can't be bothered to purchase, or are ignorant of birth control options. Additionally the current culture of sex and violence added to the public notion of minorities as automatic victims of the abuses of mythological cabals of power "holding them down" leads to a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness where a small amount of empowerment would lift these people out of the cycle of failure. The entire "welfare culture" of certain urban centers is massively destructive to these groups of people. White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, why go out and get a job when you can sit at home and collect a check and not have to grow or learn or become a better person? Who needs self respect when you can rely on the government to provide you money just for voting for the right politicians?
Start at the family level. Severely punish domestic violence. Use mental health statutes to provide counseling for at risk young women who are about to enter the cycle of pregnancy after pregnancy Provide job options and education opportunities for inner city youth that move them OUT of the inner city. Send them to work at MagPul or EoTech.......Severely punish men who father multiple children and provide no support for them. Forcibly evacuate and then bulldoze the worst of the high-crime tenements. (this will (*)(*)(*)(*) some people off) Pay for people without gang affiliations or criminal records to relocate under supervision to other areas without as much crime. Have studies conducted to determine the maximum number of convicted criminals a given area should have before it becomes a 'hot spot'. Let people know that if a building is known to harbor organized crime or too many criminals the building will be purchased by the government and bulldozed. Have the local state National Guard perform rotations in the worst crisis areas. Not necessarily armed and not necessarily to fight crime. They and the local police can have a positive effect simply by diluting the message spread by the gangs and the criminals that infest these areas. The more people realize that they can get out of the situation they are in by simply stepping up and doing something about it the more people will do just that.
Increase ROTC and Junior Police activities and other types of positive reinforcement activities for these kids. Absolutely no early release for gang members. Absolutely no house arrest and no light sentences unless the criminal agrees to relocate and stay at least four hundred miles from any known associates. If the prisons are overcrowded put the inmates in tents or shift them to another prison elsewhere. There are a number of military bases that have been closed that would probably suffice. If there aren't enough buildings for the new levels of incarcerated let the incarcerated build their own prisons. . Make the inmates generate their own food and fund their incarceration with skilled or unskilled labor. Three strikes and you are deported to a war zone in Africa. (WHATEVER race you might be)
Legalize ALL drugs. End this stupid expensive war on drugs.
People will do what people will do. You can't fix stupid. If Joe Blow wants to spend his life sucking up cocaine through a straw then let him. Let him go through legal means to get it and impose a modest tax on the process.
Require identification for voting. Voter fraud punishable by five years in prison and permanent loss of voting privileges.
Make certain that police corruption is investigated. No More Blue Line.
Make the punishment for covering up for police corruption match the original crime.
(Just like if a criminal takes part in a crime and *ANYONE* gets killed the criminal gets a murder rap)
If a cop covers up a murder by another cop, both go down for the same sentence. AND make the sentences harsher for "sworn officers" than for regular citizens.
If a politician is suspected of impropriety or of committing a crime they become inelligible for reelection for one term.
If a politician is falsely accused of impropriety or of committing a crime the accuser receives a mandatory one year prison sentence plus any civil penallties available.
Term limits term limits term limits.
All elected officials have term limits. Every one everywhere.
In the event that a law is proposed by an elected representative of the people and it can be proved to be unconstitutional the elected representative has to repay the taxpayer money that was spent for all lobbying, voting, committees, enforcement and any other costs the citizenry had to support due to the poor legislatation. Money refunds will come from all personal accounts even up to retirement accounts this politician owns.
At absolutely any time when Congress is in session any sitting Senator or Representative may be quizzed on laws they voted for. If they cannot pass the quiz showing they in fact know what they voted on they are fired immediately with all benefits lost.
Let them put THEIR money where their mouth is.