CDZ Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment?

[Humorme]

Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment?

Stupid thread. Anti-gun Democrats is a republican myth.

We want responsible gun ownership just like the NRA membership claims. However we want sensible gun responsibility, real background checks, and a limit on firepower so some wacko gunnut cannot murder a zillion people in a couple of minutes.

The problem is not with most of the NRA membership, it is with the crazies and leadership who are the gun swamp.

In short you want a government God to tell you who may and may not have unalienable Rights. You want gun control on the installment plan.

 

[2aguy]

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting.

If we're going to start invoking the old segregationist Democrats of the Old South, I'm afraid I have to leave the discussion because I smell the stench of revisionism, the revisionism that ignores the fact that the Southern Strategy of the 1960's turned ALL OF THOSE OLD BIGOTED SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS INTO REPUBLICANS, which they remain TODAY.
I just won't even participate in a debate with someone who pretends to have amnesia and who buys into nonsensical and debunked theories, like equating a poll tax with a license, or like "Nazis were liberal socialists", or "the Earth is flat" or "Jesus wrote the Constitution, but only the first ten amendments."

Have fun, kids. I'm out.

There was no Southern Strategy...that is the revisionism....you have believed a lie for a very long time...but the internet now makes it possible to defeat the lie.....just a few sources that show the great myth...

This first link...is where the myth was started....and you can see in the links that refer to this story....I can't get a quote from it...but the important part is on page 4 of the story....

This is from the last link on this page...and highlights this story...

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

The link to the phillips' story.........page 4.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf


---------

The Myth of the Racist Republicans



blackquillandink.com - This website is for sale! - blackquillandink Resources and Information.


Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink


Ken Raymond
Jun 2011

Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960′s–is a lie.

And it’s probably the biggest lie that’s been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer that’s emerges is the Southern Strategy.

I’ve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesn’t make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.

For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.

And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.

The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.

And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.

First, let’s look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.

Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene “Bull” Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King

Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.

Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.

Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.

In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”

The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”

This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.

Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.

“I would not concede the Carolina ‘s, Florida , or Virginia or the states around the rim of the south,”Nixon wrote. ”These states were a part of my plan.”

At that time, the entire southern region was the poorest in the country. The south consistently lagged behind the rest of the United States in income. And according to the

“U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence,” by Kris James Mitchener and Ian W. McLean, per capita income for southerners was almost half as much as it was for Americans in other regions.

Nixon won those states strictly on economic issues. He focused on increasing tariffs on foreign imports to protect the manufacturing and agriculture industries of those states. Some southern elected officials agreed to support him for the sake of their economies, including South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.

“I had been consulting privately with Thurmond for several months and I was convinced that he’d join my campaign if he were satisfied on the two issues of paramount concern to him: national defense and tariffs against textile imports to protect South Carolina ‘s position in the industry.”Nixon wrote in his memoirs.

In fact, Nixon made it clear to the southern elected officials that he would not compromise on the civil rights issue.

“On civil rights, Thurmond knew my position was very different from his,” Nixon wrote. “I was for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was against it. Although he disagreed with me, he respected my sincerity and candor.”

The same scenario played out among elected officials and voters in other southern states won by Nixon. They laid their feelings aside and supported him because of his economic platform’”not because Nixon sent messages on a frequency only racists can hear.



On the Southern Strategy lie itself......


Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

------

Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[francoHFW]

You would have a hard time finding a Democrat who didn't support the Second Amendment but it doesn't mean they want to arm right wing idiots with automatic weapons and RPGs LOL

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

Well the Republican propaganda machine cherry pics the fools and hypes them, but 80 to 90% of all Americans want a good background check system and bans on conversions to automatic...

Those Americans do not know the issue...so polling uninformed people to get the answer you want using questions that do not cover the topic is not convincing....if they understood that the universal background checks that you want will lead to the government registering and then one day confiscating their gun....they would answer differently.....just like they are finding out in Hawaii.....their registration list is now being used to take guns from people with medical marijuana cards...bet they never thought that would happen...

Fake news or link?

 

[Skull Pilot]

and yet it's only democrats calling for gun bans

Well the Republican propaganda machine cherry pics the fools and hypes them, but 80 to 90% of all Americans want a good background check system and bans on conversions to automatic...

so in your mind 80-90% of ALL the people in this country are not republicans?

and we already have background checks

Most Republicans agree and most NRA members agree we need a real background check system not ruined by the GOP and you'll have a hard time finding a Democrat who wants to end the 2nd Amendment. You dupes believe a lot of crap.

You say that but it is always the democrats who want to ban firearms

Nobody wants to ban firearms.

That's an outright lie

 

[Skull Pilot]

You say that but it is always the democrats who want to ban firearms

So what? It's always conservatives who want to do equally ridiculous things.
A complete and total ban on firearms is impossible.
Not only is it impossible, it's a violation of the 2A.
Not only is it in violation of the 2A, it would also be impossible to enforce.

It's not always "The Democrats", it's SOME Democrats, and those Democrats have a loose grip
on the reality of the situation, that being we have 320 million guns in this country and they're not going
anywhere. We desperately need to regulate their ownership and use but even that will have to be based in common sense, and backed up by education, and it has to earn the support of the people.

The most important thing we need to accomplish regarding guns in this country is to reestablish the kind of respect we used to have for firearms in the past. That means doing away with the toxic gun culture we have right now. People with a clean record and demonstrated responsibility should not have to encounter any trouble regarding firearm ownership and use. We managed to do this for centuries, so it is not impossible.

Guns are not, nor should they be, a political issue. They are a security issue and a health issue and their ownership and use are constitutionally protected activities for sound, law abiding American citizens.
It is up to us as a society to rethink the notions of a healthy respect for guns.
Right now, society's views on guns are distorted from all sides.

we don't need to regulate ownership beyond the restrictions we already have in place.

We need to enforce the gun laws we have and send people who commit any crime while in possession of a firearm to prison for a long time.

I realize that you mean well, but the reality is, the United States already has more people in prison than any country on this planet!

Background checks, registration, etc. don't work until AFTER a person commits a crime. Background checks, registration, etc. are preludes to bans and confiscation... period.

The key is to stop wasting money on B.S. proposals that only promote totalitarian government. Reduce crime before it happens AND, when it does, punish the offenders, rehabilitate them and send them back into society as a full citizen... not the second class B.S. the left wants you to create.

We also tend to lock up nonviolent offenders.

We need to reserve prison space for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

 

[Skull Pilot]

Background checks assume you're guilty and violate the concept of a presumption of innocence

They are a violation of your privacy

Background checks are the teeth behind gun registration which is why background checks are a prelude to registration and registration a prelude to confiscation. Registration cannot happen without the background check

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people.

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....both were declared unConstitutional and violations of the 14th Amendment.....so forcing people to get a license, is simply a poll tax....and in Haynes V. United States, felons do not have to register their illegal guns....so if felons do not have to register obviously illegal guns, you can't make law abiding citizens register their legal guns....

That's right, driving is not a right, but travel along federal and public roads is. A license is not a poll tax. You have a right to own a weapon, and that weapon can be regulated via the state, just like your owing of a vehicle. I suggest you learn about the history of your rights of owning weapons, it originated with the 1689 EBoR, in which it states as allowed by law. At no point have I suggested people must register their guns; background checks are not a violation of your rights.

Any fee to exercise a Right is a Poll Tax....

More than one ruling from the Supreme Court already makes it unConstitutional...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

You don't have a right to own a vehicle. Therefor a license can be mandated. CCW licenses/permits are not found unconstitutional. A Background check for the purchase of certain weapons is not a violation of the Constitution or your rights either.

you actually do have a right to own a vehicle what you do not have is a right to drive that vehicle on public roads.
I can buy any car I want and if I only drive it on my property or on the property of another with permission I do not have to register or insure it

 

[Humorme]

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....both were declared unConstitutional and violations of the 14th Amendment.....so forcing people to get a license, is simply a poll tax....and in Haynes V. United States, felons do not have to register their illegal guns....so if felons do not have to register obviously illegal guns, you can't make law abiding citizens register their legal guns....

That's right, driving is not a right, but travel along federal and public roads is. A license is not a poll tax. You have a right to own a weapon, and that weapon can be regulated via the state, just like your owing of a vehicle. I suggest you learn about the history of your rights of owning weapons, it originated with the 1689 EBoR, in which it states as allowed by law. At no point have I suggested people must register their guns; background checks are not a violation of your rights.

Any fee to exercise a Right is a Poll Tax....

More than one ruling from the Supreme Court already makes it unConstitutional...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

You don't have a right to own a vehicle. Therefor a license can be mandated. CCW licenses/permits are not found unconstitutional. A Background check for the purchase of certain weapons is not a violation of the Constitution or your rights either.

you actually do have a right to own a vehicle what you do not have is a right to drive that vehicle on public roads.
I can buy any car I want and if I only drive it on my property or on the property of another with permission I do not have to register or insure it

Unfortunately, you're wrong there. Last year I was having to undergo major surgery so I couldn't fight the local government and worry about my health while fighting another court battle, but they made me give away my Bronco that was sitting under the carport, not hurting a damn soul... all because it was sitting there and not being driven. It wasn't insured, but it wasn't on their damn road either.

That is one reason that I won't compromise any more when government wants to infringe on Rights.

 

[Humorme]

You say that but it is always the democrats who want to ban firearms

So what? It's always conservatives who want to do equally ridiculous things.
A complete and total ban on firearms is impossible.
Not only is it impossible, it's a violation of the 2A.
Not only is it in violation of the 2A, it would also be impossible to enforce.

It's not always "The Democrats", it's SOME Democrats, and those Democrats have a loose grip
on the reality of the situation, that being we have 320 million guns in this country and they're not going
anywhere. We desperately need to regulate their ownership and use but even that will have to be based in common sense, and backed up by education, and it has to earn the support of the people.

The most important thing we need to accomplish regarding guns in this country is to reestablish the kind of respect we used to have for firearms in the past. That means doing away with the toxic gun culture we have right now. People with a clean record and demonstrated responsibility should not have to encounter any trouble regarding firearm ownership and use. We managed to do this for centuries, so it is not impossible.

Guns are not, nor should they be, a political issue. They are a security issue and a health issue and their ownership and use are constitutionally protected activities for sound, law abiding American citizens.
It is up to us as a society to rethink the notions of a healthy respect for guns.
Right now, society's views on guns are distorted from all sides.

we don't need to regulate ownership beyond the restrictions we already have in place.

We need to enforce the gun laws we have and send people who commit any crime while in possession of a firearm to prison for a long time.

I realize that you mean well, but the reality is, the United States already has more people in prison than any country on this planet!

Background checks, registration, etc. don't work until AFTER a person commits a crime. Background checks, registration, etc. are preludes to bans and confiscation... period.

The key is to stop wasting money on B.S. proposals that only promote totalitarian government. Reduce crime before it happens AND, when it does, punish the offenders, rehabilitate them and send them back into society as a full citizen... not the second class B.S. the left wants you to create.

We also tend to lock up nonviolent offenders.

We need to reserve prison space for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

Prison is not an answer. I drafted model legislation for prison reform. In January a state senator will present it to the governor and if he likes it, the senator will submit it to the state legislature. What the bill will do is to:

1) Eliminate ALL early releases. If an inmate wants time cut off their sentence, they will do things to become rehabilitated. For example:

A) An inmate who gets their GED while in prison can get 20 percent reduction in their sentence

B) Obtaining transferable job skills while in prison can take off another 10 percent or more, depending upon the training

C) Elimination of tattoos (especially gang related) can reduce the sentence

D) Participation in drug and alcohol abuse programs (in house) could add to time off for early release.

2) In addition, prisons would offer in house seminars and training on how to apply for a job, build and apply for credit, get a house or apartment, maintain a house, create a family budget, etc. that would add to time off

3) Make all cigarettes, tobacco products, sodas, candy bars, coffee, cakes, etc. inside prisons prohibited items.

There is much more to it, but the objective is to make sure these people have earned their freedom. In exchange, after their first year of post prison rehabilitation monitoring, they go back into society with their full Rights restored.

Again, if you want to reduce gun violence, that starts BEFORE a person pulls the trigger. I can show you how we canh do that as well.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You say that but it is always the democrats who want to ban firearms

So what? It's always conservatives who want to do equally ridiculous things.
A complete and total ban on firearms is impossible.
Not only is it impossible, it's a violation of the 2A.
Not only is it in violation of the 2A, it would also be impossible to enforce.

It's not always "The Democrats", it's SOME Democrats, and those Democrats have a loose grip
on the reality of the situation, that being we have 320 million guns in this country and they're not going
anywhere. We desperately need to regulate their ownership and use but even that will have to be based in common sense, and backed up by education, and it has to earn the support of the people.

The most important thing we need to accomplish regarding guns in this country is to reestablish the kind of respect we used to have for firearms in the past. That means doing away with the toxic gun culture we have right now. People with a clean record and demonstrated responsibility should not have to encounter any trouble regarding firearm ownership and use. We managed to do this for centuries, so it is not impossible.

Guns are not, nor should they be, a political issue. They are a security issue and a health issue and their ownership and use are constitutionally protected activities for sound, law abiding American citizens.
It is up to us as a society to rethink the notions of a healthy respect for guns.
Right now, society's views on guns are distorted from all sides.

we don't need to regulate ownership beyond the restrictions we already have in place.

We need to enforce the gun laws we have and send people who commit any crime while in possession of a firearm to prison for a long time.

I realize that you mean well, but the reality is, the United States already has more people in prison than any country on this planet!

Background checks, registration, etc. don't work until AFTER a person commits a crime. Background checks, registration, etc. are preludes to bans and confiscation... period.

The key is to stop wasting money on B.S. proposals that only promote totalitarian government. Reduce crime before it happens AND, when it does, punish the offenders, rehabilitate them and send them back into society as a full citizen... not the second class B.S. the left wants you to create.

We also tend to lock up nonviolent offenders.

We need to reserve prison space for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

Prison is not an answer. I drafted model legislation for prison reform. In January a state senator will present it to the governor and if he likes it, the senator will submit it to the state legislature. What the bill will do is to:

1) Eliminate ALL early releases. If an inmate wants time cut off their sentence, they will do things to become rehabilitated. For example:

A) An inmate who gets their GED while in prison can get 20 percent reduction in their sentence

B) Obtaining transferable job skills while in prison can take off another 10 percent or more, depending upon the training

C) Elimination of tattoos (especially gang related) can reduce the sentence

D) Participation in drug and alcohol abuse programs (in house) could add to time off for early release.

2) In addition, prisons would offer in house seminars and training on how to apply for a job, build and apply for credit, get a house or apartment, maintain a house, create a family budget, etc. that would add to time off

3) Make all cigarettes, tobacco products, sodas, candy bars, coffee, cakes, etc. inside prisons prohibited items.

There is much more to it, but the objective is to make sure these people have earned their freedom. In exchange, after their first year of post prison rehabilitation monitoring, they go back into society with their full Rights restored.

Again, if you want to reduce gun violence, that starts BEFORE a person pulls the trigger. I can show you how we canh do that as well.

Prison is for punishment.

And just how do you plan to reduce gun violence and mind you if it means restricting the rights of people who obey the law then don't waste your breath

 

[Humorme]

So what? It's always conservatives who want to do equally ridiculous things.
A complete and total ban on firearms is impossible.
Not only is it impossible, it's a violation of the 2A.
Not only is it in violation of the 2A, it would also be impossible to enforce.

It's not always "The Democrats", it's SOME Democrats, and those Democrats have a loose grip
on the reality of the situation, that being we have 320 million guns in this country and they're not going
anywhere. We desperately need to regulate their ownership and use but even that will have to be based in common sense, and backed up by education, and it has to earn the support of the people.

The most important thing we need to accomplish regarding guns in this country is to reestablish the kind of respect we used to have for firearms in the past. That means doing away with the toxic gun culture we have right now. People with a clean record and demonstrated responsibility should not have to encounter any trouble regarding firearm ownership and use. We managed to do this for centuries, so it is not impossible.

Guns are not, nor should they be, a political issue. They are a security issue and a health issue and their ownership and use are constitutionally protected activities for sound, law abiding American citizens.
It is up to us as a society to rethink the notions of a healthy respect for guns.
Right now, society's views on guns are distorted from all sides.

we don't need to regulate ownership beyond the restrictions we already have in place.

We need to enforce the gun laws we have and send people who commit any crime while in possession of a firearm to prison for a long time.

I realize that you mean well, but the reality is, the United States already has more people in prison than any country on this planet!

Background checks, registration, etc. don't work until AFTER a person commits a crime. Background checks, registration, etc. are preludes to bans and confiscation... period.

The key is to stop wasting money on B.S. proposals that only promote totalitarian government. Reduce crime before it happens AND, when it does, punish the offenders, rehabilitate them and send them back into society as a full citizen... not the second class B.S. the left wants you to create.

We also tend to lock up nonviolent offenders.

We need to reserve prison space for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

Prison is not an answer. I drafted model legislation for prison reform. In January a state senator will present it to the governor and if he likes it, the senator will submit it to the state legislature. What the bill will do is to:

1) Eliminate ALL early releases. If an inmate wants time cut off their sentence, they will do things to become rehabilitated. For example:

A) An inmate who gets their GED while in prison can get 20 percent reduction in their sentence

B) Obtaining transferable job skills while in prison can take off another 10 percent or more, depending upon the training

C) Elimination of tattoos (especially gang related) can reduce the sentence

D) Participation in drug and alcohol abuse programs (in house) could add to time off for early release.

2) In addition, prisons would offer in house seminars and training on how to apply for a job, build and apply for credit, get a house or apartment, maintain a house, create a family budget, etc. that would add to time off

3) Make all cigarettes, tobacco products, sodas, candy bars, coffee, cakes, etc. inside prisons prohibited items.

There is much more to it, but the objective is to make sure these people have earned their freedom. In exchange, after their first year of post prison rehabilitation monitoring, they go back into society with their full Rights restored.

Again, if you want to reduce gun violence, that starts BEFORE a person pulls the trigger. I can show you how we canh do that as well.

Prison is for punishment.

And just how do you plan to reduce gun violence and mind you if it means restricting the rights of people who obey the law then don't waste your breath

Prison should be a way for people to become rehabilitated. Without that, all you have are career recidivists.

I would NEVER restrict the Rights of the people. I get the feeling you might be a bit short sighted, but the reality is we have upwards of 2 million people on heroin. Roughly 80 percent of the world's opioids are consumed in the United States. Virtually EVERY mass shooter in America is on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs and / or they are political jihadists.

What we do in America is to send addicts, mentally unsound, and emotionally disabled people to prison and think punishment will decrease their propensity to commit crimes. That is pure bovine manure, and in many cases, we already know who is most likely going to commit a violent crime before they do it, but we're not willing to invest resources to avert that possibility.

I get the feeling if I went into detail, I might be wasting my time. Right?

 

[Toronado3800]

There is a gun group that goes by the name "The Liberal Gun Group." They support left wing agendas and causes...including supporting hilary clinton for President. They also came together to support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Is it possible to vote for democrats and expect to keep the 2nd Amendment? The unltimate goal of the democrat party, at a minimum....is a European gun ownership system where rich and famous people have hunting shotguns....and no one else has access to guns......the real agenda...banning all civilian ownership of guns.....down to the last .22 caliber revolver.....

Liberal Gun Club: Hillary Voters Who Refuse to Give up Their Guns

The Liberal Gun Club (LGC) is an emerging gun rights organization with leaders who voted for Hillary Clinton yet refuse to give up their guns.
LGC sees guns the same way they see abortion, contending that government attempts to ban either are wrong.

According to ABC News, the LGC has roughly 7,500 members in chapters throughout the nation. Lara Smith, president of the California LGC chapter, said, “I’m a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

She added, “I see everybody else’s views as inconsistent. Abortion and gun rights are the flip side of the same issue. If you’re for banning one and not the other there’s a real inherent inconsistency in there. My view is that neither of them should be banned. I’m arguing that I’m more liberal than even my liberal friends. The liberal view on most things is, I might not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to ban it.”

Keep in mind...this is the starting point of hilary's anti gun agenda....she mentioned, fondly, the Australia gun confiscation.....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

Yes.

Lets say you somehow supported the ENTIRE Democratic party platform except on gun control measures.

For my ENTIRE LIFE you could have voted Democrat and had nothing meaningful done against your right to bear arms.

Kinda like if you vote Republican just hoping they would outlaw abortion you would have wasted your vote for the last 40 years.

On a more trivial note, each has won small victories outlawing guns or abortions but man. That's a lot of yelling and I can essentially still have my abortion unless something strange is going on and I can buy a semi-auto AK-47 on the way home.

Wrong......it is almost impossible to get guns in New York....in California, New York, Hawaii and other states...they can keep you from getting a permit to carry a gun......various states ban types of rifles and pistols...and the recent 9th and 4th circuit rulings curtail the Right to bear arms....you should actually study the topic before you post....

I suspect given your signature your view is slanted. I know a gal in NY who owns a gun she carries. Ex military type and pretty interesting. Maybe she is used to paperwork. I think NY city has extra rules but I have no idea if it applies to her on Long Island. I'll ask next time we message.

Can we meet in the middle by saying its more difficult some places than others. Here in Missouri with our high murder rate cities it seems rather easy. Gun ownership in general is pretty easy. Heck, you should see this crazy zombie painted street sweeper shotgun with this fold over "clip" my boss had on consignment at a pawnshop when it got stolen earlier in the week!

Under all kinds of governors our right to buy silly guns and have abortion have ineffectually changed during my life. I suspect this is true nationwide but will give you some states are more restrictive.

Remember, you are talking to a fellow who HAS fired a semi-auto AK in his own yard. My buddy brought it over to dial in the world's absolutely worst aligned scope. It was fairly dangerous at first lol

 

[Skull Pilot]

we don't need to regulate ownership beyond the restrictions we already have in place.

We need to enforce the gun laws we have and send people who commit any crime while in possession of a firearm to prison for a long time.

I realize that you mean well, but the reality is, the United States already has more people in prison than any country on this planet!

Background checks, registration, etc. don't work until AFTER a person commits a crime. Background checks, registration, etc. are preludes to bans and confiscation... period.

The key is to stop wasting money on B.S. proposals that only promote totalitarian government. Reduce crime before it happens AND, when it does, punish the offenders, rehabilitate them and send them back into society as a full citizen... not the second class B.S. the left wants you to create.

We also tend to lock up nonviolent offenders.

We need to reserve prison space for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

Prison is not an answer. I drafted model legislation for prison reform. In January a state senator will present it to the governor and if he likes it, the senator will submit it to the state legislature. What the bill will do is to:

1) Eliminate ALL early releases. If an inmate wants time cut off their sentence, they will do things to become rehabilitated. For example:

A) An inmate who gets their GED while in prison can get 20 percent reduction in their sentence

B) Obtaining transferable job skills while in prison can take off another 10 percent or more, depending upon the training

C) Elimination of tattoos (especially gang related) can reduce the sentence

D) Participation in drug and alcohol abuse programs (in house) could add to time off for early release.

2) In addition, prisons would offer in house seminars and training on how to apply for a job, build and apply for credit, get a house or apartment, maintain a house, create a family budget, etc. that would add to time off

3) Make all cigarettes, tobacco products, sodas, candy bars, coffee, cakes, etc. inside prisons prohibited items.

There is much more to it, but the objective is to make sure these people have earned their freedom. In exchange, after their first year of post prison rehabilitation monitoring, they go back into society with their full Rights restored.

Again, if you want to reduce gun violence, that starts BEFORE a person pulls the trigger. I can show you how we canh do that as well.

Prison is for punishment.

And just how do you plan to reduce gun violence and mind you if it means restricting the rights of people who obey the law then don't waste your breath

Prison should be a way for people to become rehabilitated. Without that, all you have are career recidivists.

I would NEVER restrict the Rights of the people. I get the feeling you might be a bit short sighted, but the reality is we have upwards of 2 million people on heroin. Roughly 80 percent of the world's opioids are consumed in the United States. Virtually EVERY mass shooter in America is on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs and / or they are political jihadists.

What we do in America is to send addicts, mentally unsound, and emotionally disabled people to prison and think punishment will decrease their propensity to commit crimes. That is pure bovine manure, and in many cases, we already know who is most likely going to commit a violent crime before they do it, but we're not willing to invest resources to avert that possibility.

I get the feeling if I went into detail, I might be wasting my time. Right?

I for one do not think nonviolent crimes and especially victim-less crimes warrant prison time for the most part

Prison should be reserved for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

 

[Humorme]

I realize that you mean well, but the reality is, the United States already has more people in prison than any country on this planet!

Background checks, registration, etc. don't work until AFTER a person commits a crime. Background checks, registration, etc. are preludes to bans and confiscation... period.

The key is to stop wasting money on B.S. proposals that only promote totalitarian government. Reduce crime before it happens AND, when it does, punish the offenders, rehabilitate them and send them back into society as a full citizen... not the second class B.S. the left wants you to create.

We also tend to lock up nonviolent offenders.

We need to reserve prison space for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

Prison is not an answer. I drafted model legislation for prison reform. In January a state senator will present it to the governor and if he likes it, the senator will submit it to the state legislature. What the bill will do is to:

1) Eliminate ALL early releases. If an inmate wants time cut off their sentence, they will do things to become rehabilitated. For example:

A) An inmate who gets their GED while in prison can get 20 percent reduction in their sentence

B) Obtaining transferable job skills while in prison can take off another 10 percent or more, depending upon the training

C) Elimination of tattoos (especially gang related) can reduce the sentence

D) Participation in drug and alcohol abuse programs (in house) could add to time off for early release.

2) In addition, prisons would offer in house seminars and training on how to apply for a job, build and apply for credit, get a house or apartment, maintain a house, create a family budget, etc. that would add to time off

3) Make all cigarettes, tobacco products, sodas, candy bars, coffee, cakes, etc. inside prisons prohibited items.

There is much more to it, but the objective is to make sure these people have earned their freedom. In exchange, after their first year of post prison rehabilitation monitoring, they go back into society with their full Rights restored.

Again, if you want to reduce gun violence, that starts BEFORE a person pulls the trigger. I can show you how we canh do that as well.

Prison is for punishment.

And just how do you plan to reduce gun violence and mind you if it means restricting the rights of people who obey the law then don't waste your breath

Prison should be a way for people to become rehabilitated. Without that, all you have are career recidivists.

I would NEVER restrict the Rights of the people. I get the feeling you might be a bit short sighted, but the reality is we have upwards of 2 million people on heroin. Roughly 80 percent of the world's opioids are consumed in the United States. Virtually EVERY mass shooter in America is on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs and / or they are political jihadists.

What we do in America is to send addicts, mentally unsound, and emotionally disabled people to prison and think punishment will decrease their propensity to commit crimes. That is pure bovine manure, and in many cases, we already know who is most likely going to commit a violent crime before they do it, but we're not willing to invest resources to avert that possibility.

I get the feeling if I went into detail, I might be wasting my time. Right?

I for one do not think nonviolent crimes and especially victim-less crimes warrant prison time for the most part

Prison should be reserved for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

The reality is we are taking mentally unstable people off the streets and, instead of sending them to places for help, we send them to jail and prison. There, they become worse and ultimately put back onto the streets.

With no job, no education, no skill sets, no support system AND a criminal record, they become recidivists, drug dealers, junkies, criminals, and many commit violent acts.

You can either fix the problem or support tyranny on the installment plan.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We also tend to lock up nonviolent offenders.

We need to reserve prison space for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

Prison is not an answer. I drafted model legislation for prison reform. In January a state senator will present it to the governor and if he likes it, the senator will submit it to the state legislature. What the bill will do is to:

1) Eliminate ALL early releases. If an inmate wants time cut off their sentence, they will do things to become rehabilitated. For example:

A) An inmate who gets their GED while in prison can get 20 percent reduction in their sentence

B) Obtaining transferable job skills while in prison can take off another 10 percent or more, depending upon the training

C) Elimination of tattoos (especially gang related) can reduce the sentence

D) Participation in drug and alcohol abuse programs (in house) could add to time off for early release.

2) In addition, prisons would offer in house seminars and training on how to apply for a job, build and apply for credit, get a house or apartment, maintain a house, create a family budget, etc. that would add to time off

3) Make all cigarettes, tobacco products, sodas, candy bars, coffee, cakes, etc. inside prisons prohibited items.

There is much more to it, but the objective is to make sure these people have earned their freedom. In exchange, after their first year of post prison rehabilitation monitoring, they go back into society with their full Rights restored.

Again, if you want to reduce gun violence, that starts BEFORE a person pulls the trigger. I can show you how we canh do that as well.

Prison is for punishment.

And just how do you plan to reduce gun violence and mind you if it means restricting the rights of people who obey the law then don't waste your breath

Prison should be a way for people to become rehabilitated. Without that, all you have are career recidivists.

I would NEVER restrict the Rights of the people. I get the feeling you might be a bit short sighted, but the reality is we have upwards of 2 million people on heroin. Roughly 80 percent of the world's opioids are consumed in the United States. Virtually EVERY mass shooter in America is on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs and / or they are political jihadists.

What we do in America is to send addicts, mentally unsound, and emotionally disabled people to prison and think punishment will decrease their propensity to commit crimes. That is pure bovine manure, and in many cases, we already know who is most likely going to commit a violent crime before they do it, but we're not willing to invest resources to avert that possibility.

I get the feeling if I went into detail, I might be wasting my time. Right?

I for one do not think nonviolent crimes and especially victim-less crimes warrant prison time for the most part

Prison should be reserved for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

The reality is we are taking mentally unstable people off the streets and, instead of sending them to places for help, we send them to jail and prison. There, they become worse and ultimately put back onto the streets.

With no job, no education, no skill sets, no support system AND a criminal record, they become recidivists, drug dealers, junkies, criminals, and many commit violent acts.

You can either fix the problem or support tyranny on the installment plan.

We fix the problem by putting violent pieces of shit away for a long time.

I don't believe we should reward bad choices. I'll endorse sending anyone under the age of 30 who commits any crime but a crime of violence for a mandatory 6 year military hitch. They can learn a trade while actually providing a service.

 

[Humorme]

Prison is not an answer. I drafted model legislation for prison reform. In January a state senator will present it to the governor and if he likes it, the senator will submit it to the state legislature. What the bill will do is to:

1) Eliminate ALL early releases. If an inmate wants time cut off their sentence, they will do things to become rehabilitated. For example:

A) An inmate who gets their GED while in prison can get 20 percent reduction in their sentence

B) Obtaining transferable job skills while in prison can take off another 10 percent or more, depending upon the training

C) Elimination of tattoos (especially gang related) can reduce the sentence

D) Participation in drug and alcohol abuse programs (in house) could add to time off for early release.

2) In addition, prisons would offer in house seminars and training on how to apply for a job, build and apply for credit, get a house or apartment, maintain a house, create a family budget, etc. that would add to time off

3) Make all cigarettes, tobacco products, sodas, candy bars, coffee, cakes, etc. inside prisons prohibited items.

There is much more to it, but the objective is to make sure these people have earned their freedom. In exchange, after their first year of post prison rehabilitation monitoring, they go back into society with their full Rights restored.

Again, if you want to reduce gun violence, that starts BEFORE a person pulls the trigger. I can show you how we canh do that as well.

Prison is for punishment.

And just how do you plan to reduce gun violence and mind you if it means restricting the rights of people who obey the law then don't waste your breath

Prison should be a way for people to become rehabilitated. Without that, all you have are career recidivists.

I would NEVER restrict the Rights of the people. I get the feeling you might be a bit short sighted, but the reality is we have upwards of 2 million people on heroin. Roughly 80 percent of the world's opioids are consumed in the United States. Virtually EVERY mass shooter in America is on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs and / or they are political jihadists.

What we do in America is to send addicts, mentally unsound, and emotionally disabled people to prison and think punishment will decrease their propensity to commit crimes. That is pure bovine manure, and in many cases, we already know who is most likely going to commit a violent crime before they do it, but we're not willing to invest resources to avert that possibility.

I get the feeling if I went into detail, I might be wasting my time. Right?

I for one do not think nonviolent crimes and especially victim-less crimes warrant prison time for the most part

Prison should be reserved for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

The reality is we are taking mentally unstable people off the streets and, instead of sending them to places for help, we send them to jail and prison. There, they become worse and ultimately put back onto the streets.

With no job, no education, no skill sets, no support system AND a criminal record, they become recidivists, drug dealers, junkies, criminals, and many commit violent acts.

You can either fix the problem or support tyranny on the installment plan.

We fix the problem by putting violent pieces of shit away for a long time.

I don't believe we should reward bad choices. I'll endorse sending anyone under the age of 30 who commits any crime but a crime of violence for a mandatory 6 year military hitch. They can learn a trade while actually providing a service.

There is a reason we no longer rely on the general population to offer up potential solutions.

Most of the people we're talking about have ADD / ADHD, autism, drug dependencies, and many suffer from schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, hallucinations, delusional behavior, and worse.

I don't think that putting those people into the military OR prison is a solution to anything. I do, however think, that rehabilitation followed up by appropriate treatments will save us money and lives in the long run.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Prison is for punishment.

And just how do you plan to reduce gun violence and mind you if it means restricting the rights of people who obey the law then don't waste your breath

Prison should be a way for people to become rehabilitated. Without that, all you have are career recidivists.

I would NEVER restrict the Rights of the people. I get the feeling you might be a bit short sighted, but the reality is we have upwards of 2 million people on heroin. Roughly 80 percent of the world's opioids are consumed in the United States. Virtually EVERY mass shooter in America is on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs and / or they are political jihadists.

What we do in America is to send addicts, mentally unsound, and emotionally disabled people to prison and think punishment will decrease their propensity to commit crimes. That is pure bovine manure, and in many cases, we already know who is most likely going to commit a violent crime before they do it, but we're not willing to invest resources to avert that possibility.

I get the feeling if I went into detail, I might be wasting my time. Right?

I for one do not think nonviolent crimes and especially victim-less crimes warrant prison time for the most part

Prison should be reserved for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

The reality is we are taking mentally unstable people off the streets and, instead of sending them to places for help, we send them to jail and prison. There, they become worse and ultimately put back onto the streets.

With no job, no education, no skill sets, no support system AND a criminal record, they become recidivists, drug dealers, junkies, criminals, and many commit violent acts.

You can either fix the problem or support tyranny on the installment plan.

We fix the problem by putting violent pieces of shit away for a long time.

I don't believe we should reward bad choices. I'll endorse sending anyone under the age of 30 who commits any crime but a crime of violence for a mandatory 6 year military hitch. They can learn a trade while actually providing a service.

There is a reason we no longer rely on the general population to offer up potential solutions.

Most of the people we're talking about have ADD / ADHD, autism, drug dependencies, and many suffer from schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, hallucinations, delusional behavior, and worse.

I don't think that putting those people into the military OR prison is a solution to anything. I do, however think, that rehabilitation followed up by appropriate treatments will save us money and lives in the long run.

Quantify most.

 

[Humorme]

Prison should be a way for people to become rehabilitated. Without that, all you have are career recidivists.

I would NEVER restrict the Rights of the people. I get the feeling you might be a bit short sighted, but the reality is we have upwards of 2 million people on heroin. Roughly 80 percent of the world's opioids are consumed in the United States. Virtually EVERY mass shooter in America is on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs and / or they are political jihadists.

What we do in America is to send addicts, mentally unsound, and emotionally disabled people to prison and think punishment will decrease their propensity to commit crimes. That is pure bovine manure, and in many cases, we already know who is most likely going to commit a violent crime before they do it, but we're not willing to invest resources to avert that possibility.

I get the feeling if I went into detail, I might be wasting my time. Right?

I for one do not think nonviolent crimes and especially victim-less crimes warrant prison time for the most part

Prison should be reserved for violent pieces of shit who do not belong on the streets

The reality is we are taking mentally unstable people off the streets and, instead of sending them to places for help, we send them to jail and prison. There, they become worse and ultimately put back onto the streets.

With no job, no education, no skill sets, no support system AND a criminal record, they become recidivists, drug dealers, junkies, criminals, and many commit violent acts.

You can either fix the problem or support tyranny on the installment plan.

We fix the problem by putting violent pieces of shit away for a long time.

I don't believe we should reward bad choices. I'll endorse sending anyone under the age of 30 who commits any crime but a crime of violence for a mandatory 6 year military hitch. They can learn a trade while actually providing a service.

There is a reason we no longer rely on the general population to offer up potential solutions.

Most of the people we're talking about have ADD / ADHD, autism, drug dependencies, and many suffer from schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, hallucinations, delusional behavior, and worse.

I don't think that putting those people into the military OR prison is a solution to anything. I do, however think, that rehabilitation followed up by appropriate treatments will save us money and lives in the long run.

Quantify most.

What possible difference does that make? Once you eliminate the sociopaths, psychopaths, criminally insane, along with those with ADD / ADHD, autism, drug dependencies, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, hallucinations, delusional behavior; once you take out those on SSRIs and the political jihadists... you don't have much of a base left that will potentially harm their fellow man.

 

[Alexanderful]

In my mind the answer is definitely YES...but it probably would mean that you are more concerned about other issues. I think one of the biggest problems with our political thinking today is that there are only two flavors of people: Liberals and Conservatives and they belong to the Democrat and Republican parties respectively. In reality, people *should* fall all along a spectrum of liberal/conservative values and it would be issue-dependent...unless they have been brainwashed into thinking that they have to agree with the ENTIRE party platform. What does a person's viewpoint on gun control have to do with their viewpoint on the best healthcare system or abortion? I can't see a completely coherent connection. But, each party had to divide up all the issues people disagree on and take a side.

So...if there happened to be a whole lot of Democrats (and Republicans) that supported the 2nd Amendment then it would just become a "non-issue". Like neither party is interested in debating the 19th amendment because there is general agreement on it as Americans.

 

[Humorme]

In my mind the answer is definitely YES...but it probably would mean that you are more concerned about other issues. I think one of the biggest problems with our political thinking today is that there are only two flavors of people: Liberals and Conservatives and they belong to the Democrat and Republican parties respectively. In reality, people *should* fall all along a spectrum of liberal/conservative values and it would be issue-dependent...unless they have been brainwashed into thinking that they have to agree with the ENTIRE party platform. What does a person's viewpoint on gun control have to do with their viewpoint on the best healthcare system or abortion? I can't see a completely coherent connection. But, each party had to divide up all the issues people disagree on and take a side.

So...if there happened to be a whole lot of Democrats (and Republicans) that supported the 2nd Amendment then it would just become a "non-issue". Like neither party is interested in debating the 19th amendment because there is general agreement on it as Americans.

You didn't make it clear who you were responding to.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So...if there happened to be a whole lot of Democrats (and Republicans) that supported the 2nd Amendment then it would just become a "non-issue". Like neither party is interested in debating the 19th amendment because there is general agreement on it as Americans.

The NRA, together with its coterie of sycophants, has managed to weaponize guns into a cult, not a culture.
In a cult, one is not allowed to have their own views. A Scientologist is not allowed to doubt parts of L. Ron Hubbard's writings or question the actions of David Miscavige.
Watch what happens when any NRA supporters detect someone who doesn't eat the whole enchilada.

See? It's a cult.