![]() |
This debate will go on forever. I will keep my guns and the day you (any citizen) or the government comes and try's to take them from me, you or the government will be met with gunfire.
Good luck |
Shawn, my apologies. Just reading through your posts made it seem as such.
|
"I'd leave that to lawmakers and their ability to find facts"
LMFAO! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sometimes we get it wrong and our system certainly has the ability to be manipulated by a well financed minority. Just look at how powerful the NRA is... as far as I know it has fewer than 10M members. For the record, I don't really have a problem with "assault weapons." Handguns on the other hand.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We have a process where you can fix that. Exercise your right to vote. Call your elected representatives. Talk to your friends and tell them to do the same thing. If things are as bad as you say, that's the only rational way to continue. |
I think the point is that this lil experiment in freedom called America was designed to be in favor of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Basically, all citizens are required to be of such character that they are trusted to be free to own the materials necessary to defend their own right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Laws are meant to deal with those who breach that trust. Individuals are accountable for their actions and the society is respsonsible for enforcement of laws and the punishment for the individuals who breach that trust. What has happened is that as a society, we have failed to enforce our laws and punish those who breach that trust to the point that they cannot or will not breach it again. Therefore, more people are willing to breach that trust for personal gain. The knee jerk reaction to the rising number of those willing to breach that trust is to stop trusting the whole. That is the wrong solution. It doesnt stop bad people from performing these actions, it merely makes them less surprising since you dont trust anyone to begin with. Criminals are not hindered by laws by definition, so laws only hinder the law abiding. If you want to stop criminals, make the punishment for crime so severe that people are not tempted by the potential personal gain. |
Quote:
Besides, you can go to a country like Turkey where thieves risk having their hand cut off by the govt. Thievery still runs rampant in Turkey. |
And let's say Guy A commits murder with a handgun and Guy B commits a murder using a knife. Even though they committed essentially the same crime, Guy A receives a harsher penalty."
Thats part of the problem! It should be the same because the net results where the same. |
Quote:
Quote:
The same is true for guns. For years, Americans had the rights to own any gun they wanted. They didn't own all that many because the didn't feel the needed them. Crime was punished severely and there wasn't a crime problem. People didn't lock their doors at night. As America became soft on crime and compassionate for criminals, the risk reward began to change. The public became fearful of one another as crime rose. They started locking their doors at night. They began arming themselves. Criminals became more advanced and organized, buying machineguns as tools of the trade, outgunning law enforcement. So, we punished society with the NFA in hopes to keep mobsters from getting tommyguns. It didnt work, they still got em, and the answer was giving law enforcement surplus BARs. NFA still doesnt thwart criminal possession today. Any criminal can have a full auto within a day or two if he wanted one. They still get em easily, but if anyone else wants one, including law enforcement, they have to get ATF approval which is currently running 6-8 months per stamp (for civis, a little less for LE. Different form). So, it only hinders the good guys\ law abiding. So what is the NFA good for? Bottom line, is that we have allowed our culture to become soft an apathetic on crime. We are desperate to stop it but loathe the effort of requiring accountability of our citizens. So the easy way out is to reduce the level of rights to all in an effort to inconvenience the criminals. |
Quote:
I get what you are saying, but I think it's a real stretch to say that crime is the result of limited access to guns. In the neighborhoods where you are most likely to be shot, there's also poverty, lack of education, the aforementioned incarceration rates, and few jobs. To say that crime is the result of gun control is pretty simplistic. One could argue, using your logic, that signapore's relatively restrictive laws on gun ownership have beneficially impacted crime (and specifically incarceration) rates. |
Quote:
Look at our prisons by comparison. We have our white collar club med prisons all the way to our supermax with clean living, education programs, workout facilities, movie theaters, and cable TV. Our prisoners live better that 99% of the honest people in the world. hardly a punishment fit for breaking the trust of American society. |
Stupid founders and their stupid eighth amendment! We coulda been singapore!
|
Quote:
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/tod...08495#50208495 |
so a report with no sources but a talking head on TV the day after the shooting (from "liberal media" NBC no less) is infallible but the Connecticut state police's website clarifying is all part of the hoax?
In other words, "some guy told me" is better in your mind than "the police say, in writing"? |
Quote:
|
I'm pretty sure most folks would see execution for drug possession as cruel and unusual, which is the example you gave, Jason.
|
Quote:
|
^What if the person is wrongly convicted? Are you okay with effin killing an innocent person?
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Believe who and what you want. I'm not here to change your mind. I'm telling you why I have my doubts. To me it's not hard to fathom that the CT police could be influenced to change their story in the best interest of a political agenda, like banning assault rifles. |
Quote:
Conspiracies generally are very hard to keep. If you are now suggesting that the CT state police are falsifying evidence, how many people are in on that? 15 or 20 at least, right (**Assuming the WHOLE THING isn't faked with pretend dead kids, actor parents, etc, in which case the number of conspirators has to be in the hundreds at least)? And all of those folks are putting their careers and reputations on the line on the hope that a long shot awb will pass? Why have none of the conspirators cracked? I know I know, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. |
There is a big problem with the logic being used in the gun debate. I'm a liberal gun owner who supports the 2nd ammendment right but it seems that most of the weapons stock pilers are immature losers who fantasize about taking the country back from the immigrants by using their guns to kill all the brown people and somehow that is going to fix the broken government. People talk about protecting themselves from the government but they aren't prepared to fight the government as they lack the heavy artillery and remotely guided weapons that our government has (not to mention the 600 billion per year defense budget). So how will you fight the government with your simple assault rifles? I guess the only option is to kill anyone who doesn't vote the same way you do. That isn't the kind of protection from the government that the 2nd ammendment intended but is rather a spit in the face for the entire US Constitution and its creators. I support the 2nd ammendment but if you intend to kill me because I also voted for the "Muslim liar in chief who was born in Kenya and doesn't care about Americans killed in Bengazi" then I have a huge problem with you. The second ammendment isn't in any danger as it takes a 2/3 majority vote to change or remove it and that's not going to happen. The supreme court is 5 to 4 in favor of conservative view points so the 2nd ammendment won't be interpreted to inhibit the 2nd ammendment. Background checks only affect you if you're a wacko nut job. An executive order cannot be used to overturn a constitutional right. A UN resolution does not take priority over constitutional or Ameican law so that argument is irrelevant as well. Nobody is going to take away your guns. The US military is the biggest threat to you and you're the one voting to keep giving them more money as if over 600 billion a year wasn't already way too much considering the pitence that we pay our soldiers for their bravery and service. People like you are your own worst enemy as most of your arguments support the fear of others who want to take away your guns.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
IMO prison should be hell on earth and have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I think this is the happy medium between execution for all offense and our current cushy system. I think they should be so miserable that people will do whatever it takes to stay out of prison and will make whatever life they can within the law, or die trying. |
Quote:
Consider too that the recidivism rate is so high not because prison is such an awesome vacation destination, but because of what a poor job we do of reintegrating criminals back into society. |
I don't have guns to protect myself from the military. For one I'm not tactically trained like they nor do I have the firepower that they do. Not that I want that kind of fire power. There are plenty of people that I do want to protect myself from. The needs of a gun like an AR aren't seen by many but still needed by some. If I lived within two hours of the Texas/Mexico border you better believe I would have one on me at all times. The rest of the country doesn't get to live the fear that ranchers get to live everyday. Why not just pack up and move you ask? Why should they have to? Well then just make an exemption for people in certain circumstances right? Well that exemption becomes the loophole for the next time someone needs a reason for crime not going down. Every law that's brought up to legislation has future plans beyond the original law, everything needs a stepping stone. If you don't believe that then I don't know what to tell you. Protect your rights sensibly and with actual purpose and when you open your mouth don't give people a reason to call BS. Anyone can find a reason for anything that will back up their point, go look through others eyes before forming your own opinions and sharing them with the world to see. History does have a way of repeating itself if you don't learn from past mistakes. Read from that what you will and I hope summer hurries fast so we can all get off each others throats.
|
Quote:
Your worldview is the part of the problem. Blame anyone or anything except those responsible. Criminals re-offend because the weight of punishment is not greater than the risk reward. Prison is a punishment, not a place to acquire a life coach. |
Quote:
|
They had the same opportunity as everyone else. They made the decision to break the law and the consequence is a criminal record that will haunt you for the rest of your life. We make choices and must face the consequence for those choices. It is not societies job to rehabilitate offenders, it is societies job to punish them for their crime. It is THEIR job to rehabilitate- to suggest they re-offend because society isn't holding up their part of the bargain is pure garbage. The bargain is: You follow the rules and enter productively, or you become an outcast.
Besides, sans first degree murder, nobody goes to jail for a single crime. They have become fixtures of the criminal justice system before they set foot in any prison. The VAST majority have had chance after chance. |
Quote:
More garbage from a distorted world view. You're suggesting that criminals have no choice but to commit crimes. "No realistic opportunity to live an honest life" Nobody owes you an opportunity. Pure garbage. If it weren't so sad it would be comical. |
Quote:
And Barry, if I am not mistaken, you are a Christian. What does the bible say about forgiveness? |
Quote:
If they're not given(key word) a realistic opportunity then who's responsible for providing that opportunity? Quote:
Quote:
Don't confuse forgiveness with accountability, they are not synonymous. |
^There's no confusion. But if a person pays their debt, do we hold them accountable for the rest of their life? I hardly ever drive more than 5 MPH over the speed limit, but in a moment of not paying attention to my speedometer and needing to pee really badly, I received a speeding ticket in GA. I paid all necessary fines and admitted all responsibility for speeding, but should I permanently be remembered as a law-breaking speeder?
|
You're missing the point.
The natural consequence of of being a criminal goes well past incarceration. Unfair or not, you will likely be branded a felon for life. They can be forgiven, or pay their full debt, but consequence has a ripple affect and is not limited to initial punishment. You didn't answer me: Quote:
Quote:
|
guns
"our prisons are a very comfortable place, and this fact makes the reward of crime worth the risk of going to our fine prisons."
We(the people) should not be paying $50,000.00 a year for each person in prison. We shouldn't have to pay a dime for criminals. Put all the violent criminals in South Dakota with an acre of land and make them fend for themselves, if they leave the area they are to live in their monitor gives them a severe shock. " Singapore law does not prohibit any gun type for ownership." This is a very Misleading statement! In Singapore, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Singapore ranked at No. 163 In Singapore, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition An applicant for a firearm licence in Singapore must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental, medical, and Gun Club Membership In Singapore gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence every 2 years Maybe we could learn a few things from Singapore? |
Joe, it's not misleading. We regulate types of guns a civilian can have (NFA 1934). They do not regulate types. We have similar background checks as well, but we don't have to re-up a license unless we are carrying concealed. So, not a ton of difference already. The real question is why do they not have the crime problem? It's because they hold individual adults accountable for their actions. Doing something against the law is not a mistake. It's a willful attempt at gaining by breaching the rules. Dropping a mayonnaise jar is a mistake.
|
Wow Jason, you read it one way and I read the same words and get a completely different interpretation.
In Singapore, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition and the right is not guaranteed by law. Once you have a license you may purchase Any type of gun you wish. This is completely different than the USA, where anyone can go to a gun show and buy or sell a gun. Is anyone else besides Jason reading this as being similar to US laws? |
|
Nah, I understand what you meant, you just misunderstood what i was talking about in the initial mention. i was talking about regulating types of guns. Here we cannot buy machine guns or short barreled rifles/shotguns without a tax stamp (which is similar to the license you are referring to as it has the same background check, and has to be signed off on by local authorities if bought by an individual, etc). They do not regulate types of guns like we do. Once you are approved for ownership, you can own anything and everything.
Most people in the us buy their guns from dealers and go through FFLs. The face to face sales do not account for much of the gun purchases in the US. Bad guys would get there guns in a face to face transaction whether those kinds of transactions are legal or not. What people do not understand is that legislation does not make it harder for those who break laws. You cannot stop gun violence with rules. You stop it with penalties. |
|
Jeremy,
I'm still anxiously awaiting an answer to the question(s) I asked twice and that you conveniently ignored. Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm sorry. I haven't been ignoring your post. My best friend committed suicide last week. I have been on here some, but not as much as usual.
My answer to your comment is, that yes, he has a "realistic opportunity" to live an honest life, but what are going to be his possibilities of employment. Before you give me the "America is the land of opportunity" spill, let's just be honest with one another, his likely job choices are going to be minimum wage jobs. Is it feasible to support a family on minimum wage? Yes, I know he has the chance to work his way up to fry cook and then maybe supervisor, that chance doesn't pay the bills. Again, I know they committed the crime and it's not societies fault. But when earning a decent living (I am only talking about the basics, nothing exotic) is extremely difficult to find good employment due to their criminal history. And considering that the majority of prisoners are high school dropouts this only makes the situation more difficult. I guess my argument is that offering them some sort of training in a trade or an opportunity to earn their GED is better than having them potentially returning to a life of crime, particularly from a fiscal point of view. |
Sorry to hear about your friend. Suicide is such a tough thing to deal with on top of death.
IMO, this should be a critical deterrent against crime. You DO NOT get a normal life back once you have paid your legal debt. You have to make due with the consequences of your illegal action. That means you dont get the best jobs, and you have to work 3 crappy jobs to make what a lower class non-criminal makes. We are all called to live by the rules or die trying. This is why prison must be so uncomfortable, that someone would rather die trying to live by the rules, then get sent back in. People do get back into the normal workforce over time, but they have to stick with it. Harsh punishment will make that the case more often. |
The media seems to be obsessed with the failure of last week's but the primary reason for that failure has gone unreported, national CCW reciprocity.
The votes to invoke cloture (overcome a filibuster) were there. The decision to require 60-votes on these bills was made by Senate leadership, i.e. Democrats, in order to avoid floor debate on the bill and subsequent amendments. So when the Manchin-Toomey amendment regarding background checks, for the 11% of firearms purchased face-to-face or at the feared and reviled gun show, failed, the fault layed at the feet of the majority party who made the decision to require a higher vote threshold. So why would Senate leadership opt to avoid floor debate and potential success of opposition party amendments, especially considering Senator Cruz was offering amendments to include mental health indicators to improve the NICS system and solve an issue that may have prevented Aurora and Virginia Tech. Both those shooters purchased their firearms through a FFL with a NICS background check despite both had been flagged by mental health professionals. This is a flaw in the current system, but clearly that amendment by Senator Cruz wouldn't cause Senate leadership to flinch, it's supportive of limiting who can buy firearms. Well, the Cornyn amendment is likely the primary reason for the 60-vote threshold. This amendment would have created CCW reciprocity. So if you have a CCW permit/license it would be valid in all jurisdictions. Basically, the Senate Democrats derailed their whole gun package over a fear of LICENSED gun-owners. Just another perspective on what happened. It wasn't arcane procedural rules or the gun lobby or the Republicans, it was a political error made to prevent bipartisan participation and prevent an open debate on the Senate floor. Oh and they also sacrificed a national magazine limitation of 10-rounds, which got a majority but failed to receive 60-votes. |
BTW...
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/ Also supported by Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:30 AM. |