Explain this. This guy shoots a Firefighter during the attempt to murder someone else....released in less than 3 years, gets illegal gun, again.

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I try and put myself in other people’s shoes to get an idea, a shallow and incomplete idea, of what they are enduring.

Did you do that when you heard about the couple in St. Louis facing a mob?

Perhaps it was my upbringing. Where I was taught to Judge Not lest ye be so judged.

Same question.

Perhaps it is because my beliefs are based upon a foundation of this nation. The founders and their thoughts, and ideals. Including the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you also believe that they intended that the citizenry be armed sufficient to act like an army, and therefore unrestricted?

Show me where the Founders thought it was appropriate to deprive someone of their Second Amendment Rights because they had completed their sentence. I would bet you can’t, but the truth is you won’t even try. And it is a given that you can’t, because none of the founders wrote it that I’ve ever been able to find. I’ve looked.

I don't disagree. Show me where they intended anything other than "shall not be infringed." This guy should have had all his rights restored and should have been unrestricted, period.

But you want to limit guns to those who you approve of. You’re no better than the Gun Grabbers on the Left. Because you want to restrict them to who you want to be armed. Just as they do.

Not me. In fact, I believe that if anybody needs to be armed, it is the people who live in tough neighborhoods. It's a sad fact that many are black folks. I would NEVER deprive them of that right, like Ronny Reagan's racist ass did in California.

So rant and rave and bitch and moan. My ideals are based upon the foundation of this Nation. My ideals are based in common sense, and truth. What are yours based upon besides intolerance and the attitude that everyone is always guilty of something.

Mine too. So why continue to support assholes who would deprive you or anyone else the right to any weapon they choose?

 

[john doe 101]

This is why we do not take anti-gunners seriously.......they target normal people who own guns, while the political party they support keeps releasing violent gun offenders....gun offenders who have been convicted for shooting people........this is fucking insane...

Jermaine White, one of two men charged with shooting an on-duty firefighter in Albany Park last year, was in court to face a new gun charge before Judge John Lyke.

Last year, police said two men set a car on fire in the 3600 block of West Wilson Avenue so they could shoot rival gang members who came outside to investigate the blaze. The gunmen shot a fireman who got caught in the crossfire. He survived.

Prosecutors charged White and another man with aggravated battery of an on-duty fireman by discharging a firearm and other felonies. Earlier this year, prosecutors dropped that charge when White agreed to plead guilty to aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in exchange for a three-year sentence.

The state automatically cut the sentence in half for good behavior, and White received credit for time spent in jail after his arrest. When it was all said and done, White walked into the Stateville Correctional Center on June 29. And he walked out 36 days later.

White, who is still on parole, was arrested again on Monday. Police pulled him over for driving without headlights. When they asked him for his license, he leaned forward and threw a handgun from the floorboard in front of him to the back seat floorboard, prosecutors said. His three-year-old child was sitting in the back seat without restraints, according to Assistant State’s Attorney Darryl Auguste.

CPD body cameras recorded the alleged gun toss, Auguste said. Cops allegedly found crack cocaine in the car, too.

Auguste tried to convince Judge Lyke to hold White without bail by arguing that White was on parole for a gun case that originated with allegations that he shot an on-duty fireman.

White’s private defense attorney, Joshua Kutnick, wasn’t having it.

“This state’s attorney’s office decided that no conviction was warranted on the [aggravated battery of a] firefighter,” Kutnick told Lyke, arguing Auguste’s colleagues dismissed the charge that prosecutors were trying to use against him.

Kutnick said White, who was convicted of aggravated battery as a juvenile and spent six years in prison for a domestic battery attack that lacerated his girlfriend’s liver, “is not a violent person.”

White did participate in the shootout that injured the fireman last year — but he only fired in defense of a friend, Kutnick argued.

The state’s plea agreement in the firefighter case apparently kept the court’s pre-trial services officer from flagging White for possible violence in the future.

Plea deal in 2020 firefighter shooting pays dividends when gunman is allegedly caught with another firearm

Two months after getting out of prison, Jermaine White was allegedly caught with another gun Monday.

cwbchicago.com

So you are finally admitting it's pretty easy for people in America that legally should not have guns, to get guns. Now we're finally getting somewhere.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No. I’m that honest. Attempted Murder rarely sees that kind of sentence, anywhere in the nation. Rarely does the accused do more than a decade for such a crime.

There are multiple reasons, but one of the big ones is that the Prisons, are crowded now. And they can’t really stop prosecuting people to make sure that the guys we have no, serve long sentences.

So answer the question I asked. How much more are you willing to pay in taxes to lock everyone up for as long as you think they should be? Are you willing to pay half again as much in taxes? A 50% increase? Are you willing to pay twice as much? Or do you demand that the Justice System do more with less? Lock up more people, build more prisons, house and care for the prisoners, all for less money.

One solution that would solve a lot of problems is to end the bullshit, complete failure called the "War on Drugs." That would clear out half the prison population AND cut back on a shit ton of violence.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you are finally admitting it's pretty easy for people in America that legally should not have guns, to get guns. Now we're finally getting somewhere.

It's easy for them to get guns. So, why deprive non-violent people from easily getting guns?

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes. "Brandishing" means showing that you have the ability to do harm in an effort to stop certain behavior that, itself could result in serious injury or death. Should that be illegal?

But, you are mixing "stand your ground" with the castle doctrine. There is no duty to retreat from your castle. In most states, that includes the ground surrounding said castle.

They came charging out of their own house onto their own fucking property to do nothing more than prevent a large number of people from entering their property, approaching, approaching the home, and doing harm. Is it your argument that the St. Louis couple did not reasonably believe that they were in danger?

The fact that they pled guilty means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than they wanted to be done with it, whether the result was just or not. It means nothing more.


Burglary in Texas is almost extinct because of the castle doctrine being a complete defense to prosecution. Not a defense at trial, mind you. A complete defense to the case even being maintained. The "castle" extends to the edge of the property and includes any automobiles. One does not need to wait until intruders come into the home to defend it. WHY? For the same reason one does not need to wait until another person actually shoots them before they draw and fire. The intruders do not need to actually enter the walls of the home to do all manner of terrible things, like burn the house down or shoot at the occupants through windows and walls.

So, now those people know that there are guns in the home to be stolen, but they also now know that there are guns in the home to shoot them if they try, and the home occupant walks without prosecution (at least in Texas).

Counter-point. By staying indoors, they would have allowed the mob, who one could reasonably believe such mod intended to burn their house down or otherwise do them harm, to get close enough to do it without resistance. Stopping them in the yard prevented the mob's approach.

If shooting started, they may have ended up dead in the yard, but that's better than potentially burned alive in the house with zero effort to prevent it. Who are you to criticize decisions made under the extreme pressure of what appeared to be a mob of angry people insurmountably outnumbering the two.

Legally - that's highly debatable and probably should result in a constitutional challenge if true.
Strategically - I think you are a moron. I'm glad I don't have to rely on you for security.
Tactically - see above.

Rushing outside to stare down a crowd of fifty or a hundred? They have more people than our intrepid homeowners have bullets. Yet you think that is a good idea.

Help me out. If the mere presence of a gun scared the crowd away, and kept them from doing anything like burning the house down, why didn’t the crowd run from Kyle Rittenhouse instead of towards him?

It was stupid tactically. Cover stops bullets. Concealment hides you from observation, standing outside with nothing but your shirt and a bang stick is a quick way to get dead.

Smart money puts it as going inside, taking up positions where you can observe, and dialing 911.

Because if the cops show up, they aren’t going to immediately assume that you are a good guy with a gun. They’re going to shoot the good guys too.

Police: Man who shot Colorado gunman was killed by officer

DENVER (AP) — Johnny Hurley was hailed by police as a hero for shooting and killing a gunman they say had killed one officer and expressed hatred for police in a Denver suburb. But when another officer rushed in to respond and saw Hurley holding the suspect’s AR-15, he shot Hurley, killing him...

apnews.com

This fellow. He heard gunshots and rushed to the sound of danger. Commendable, courageous. Stupid. He got a bead on the man shooting at the cops. He took the baddie out. The police saw a man with a gun, and killed him.

So bad guy dead by good guy. Good guy dead by other good guys?

Smarter to minimize the problems the cops had to deal with. Seek cover, keep your gun in the holster, and wait. If the baddie comes towards you, into whatever store you’re in, then shoot him and get back to cover. Toss your gun out and shout at the cops you’re coming out unarmed.

Hurley is a hero according to the cops. He is also a dead hero. And he’s not the first. The guy at the mall who was killed while trying to get people out of the danger area.

Others, who decided to stand with their gun for the safety of other, dead. Too often by the cops who don’t know what is going on and have to assume the worst don’t they?

So the couple could have been killed by the crowd, or the cops who theoretically were responding, or by each other if the shooting started and they waved the weapons around as they fired.

Dumb. Very dumb. They were lucky. Others were not.

 

[john doe 101]

One solution that would solve a lot of problems is to end the bullshit, complete failure called the "War on Drugs." That would clear out half the prison population AND cut back on a shit ton of violence.

Exactly. Legalize all drugs. Not only will you greatly reduce violent crime in America, you'll also reduce the flow of illegals across the border. All while decreasing the prison population so your tax dollars will go towards something useful.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Rushing outside to stare down a crowd of fifty or a hundred? They have more people than our intrepid homeowners have bullets. Yet you think that is a good idea.

Who is going to be the first 30 to sacrifice themselves so the others can get to the shooters? Again, rushing out to meet the threat and being mobile is better than being trapped inside and doing nothing.

Help me out. If the mere presence of a gun scared the crowd away, and kept them from doing anything like burning the house down, why didn’t the crowd run from Kyle Rittenhouse instead of towards him?

They did once he started shooting. He didn't need to empty his magazine. That crowd left in a hurry and he only killed, what, two people?

It was stupid tactically. Cover stops bullets. Concealment hides you from observation, standing outside with nothing but your shirt and a bang stick is a quick way to get dead.

Smart money puts it as going inside, taking up positions where you can observe, and dialing 911.

Because if the cops show up, they aren’t going to immediately assume that you are a good guy with a gun. They’re going to shoot the good guys too.

I completely disagree, but let's hope that neither of us need to put our theories to the test.

This fellow. He heard gunshots and rushed to the sound of danger. Commendable, courageous. Stupid. He got a bead on the man shooting at the cops. He took the baddie out. The police saw a man with a gun, and killed him.

So bad guy dead by good guy. Good guy dead by other good guys?

I am on record saying that a private citizen's guns are solely for the protection of that individual and his family. No, that was NOT a good idea. It was stupid. That's a completely different scenario.

Smarter to minimize the problems the cops had to deal with. Seek cover, keep your gun in the holster, and wait. If the baddie comes towards you, into whatever store you’re in, then shoot him and get back to cover. Toss your gun out and shout at the cops you’re coming out unarmed.

What if it's more than one person? Say 100 people? And say, it's not at a store, but right outside your home?

I guess we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Hurley is a hero according to the cops. He is also a dead hero. And he’s not the first. The guy at the mall who was killed while trying to get people out of the danger area.

Like I said, my guns are for my protection only.

But, let's think about it this way.

Should Hurley have simply waited to be shot to death by the bad guy before drawing his weapon to protect himself because he MIGHT get shot by police IF he is lucky enough to take the shooter out? It sounds like that is what you are saying.

So the couple could have been killed by the crowd, or the cops who theoretically were responding, or by each other if the shooting started and they waved the weapons around as they fired.

The alternative is to wait until 100 angry people bust down the door and trap them inside?

Agree to disagree.

 

[SavannahMann]

Did you do that when you heard about the couple in St. Louis facing a mob?

Same question.

Do you also believe that they intended that the citizenry be armed sufficient to act like an army, and therefore unrestricted?

I don't disagree. Show me where they intended anything other than "shall not be infringed." This guy should have had all his rights restored and should have been unrestricted, period.

Not me. In fact, I believe that if anybody needs to be armed, it is the people who live in tough neighborhoods. It's a sad fact that many are black folks. I would NEVER deprive them of that right, like Ronny Reagan's racist ass did in California.

Mine too. So why continue to support assholes who would deprive you or anyone else the right to any weapon they choose?

Yes, I put myself in their shoes. And I remembered my training from the Army. A defensive position is a force tripling effect. It is why you must have a three to one advantage on any attack. So if things had gone bad, both the Husband and Wife should have been able to take three each with them into the great beyond.

In the front yard, they might have gotten two, or three, total. And that presumes that the husband with his rifle fired into the crowd indiscriminately.

Inside the house, behind walls, that would make it harder to get shot, they stand a much better chance of survival if the shooting starts. Cover is important. It is why our troops seek cover when they are shot at. The days of walking towards the guy standing up and shooting are in history for a reason. The world learned that it is better to seek cover.

Hurley should have done as I said, get cover, and wait. The police were there already. More were coming, and they knew who each other was. The “friendly” forces were able to identify each other easily. Uniforms, badges, cars that say “Police” on the side. Radio communication. Bob, I’m on your left, I can see the bad guy behind that green Chevy. As one example.

By charging out he got the bad guy, but the cops who did not know he was a good guy, shot and killed him. The cops would have gotten him too, and probably without any other friendly casualties. Hurley died rushing to the sound of the guns to help the cops, but the cops didn’t know he was there to help.

If the Hundred or so you worry might have rushed the house if they were inside. Perhaps they might have. We can play what if all day. What if by going inside and calling the police the couple managed to avoid the confrontation entirely. The mob goes down the street and the cops show up and surround them or drive them from the neighborhood. Don’t pretend that the couple cared about the neighbors. Because if shooting had started the bullets would have flown into the neighbors houses too. And there was nothing to prevent the mob from continuing their journey.

But lets say the hundred or so come towards the house. Shouted warnings don’t deter them, and the shooting starts. Again, tactically it is much smarter to seek cover and fire. Because inside the house you have access to more ammunition. One magazine each isn’t much of a fight if it goes on for more than ten seconds.

But inside, or outside, if they faced a hundred they would still be dead. Then the smart thing is to take as many with you as possible. In that case, defensive positions mean you can expect to get at least three, quite probably more with the choke points of windows and doors.

Then your actions are defensible in court, if you should survive and face charges. You didn’t go looking for trouble, you stayed in your home and defended yourself. Any lawyer with five years experience in a court room could defend that successfully.

Smarter legally, smarter tactically, and smarter strategically.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you are finally admitting it's pretty easy for people in America that legally should not have guns, to get guns. Now we're finally getting somewhere.

Who would be against that? Given this guys criminal history, he wasn't allowed to be near a gun. That's the problem here. Problem two is when they let dangerous clowns like this back out into the street, he's going to get another gun and Lord knows do what kind of damage or death. If you are in possession of a firearm when you are not allowed to have one, it should be 20 years in prison instead of trying to disarm all of society because these leftist judges let these people go out to commit more crime.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem is that 20 years wasn’t called for by the law. Even if he had been convicted of a murder chances are he wouldn’t do 20 years.

Do you know why people join gangs? No. Of course not.

Imagine you are in that dangerous neighborhood. Walking to the store for bread and milk can get you beaten, robbed, or murdered. You want to protect yourself. Everyone would want to. So you look around. The guys wearing blue aren’t being harassed like that. So you start to hang out with them. With them it is still dangerous. But not nearly as bad as going alone.

Take history and boil it down and see the parallels. When towns would band together to defend the town from Indians in our own history. The foundation of the Militia. Townspeople who came running when there was a threat.

I’m not saying they are misunderstood angels. I am saying they are surviving in their worlds the only way that seems to work. Locking up whole neighborhoods seems expensive. And the thing RW types hate more than crime is high taxes for things like prisons.

So answer me this. Where are we going to put these folks for 20 plus years for their crimes? And how much are you willing to be taxed to afford it?

That's utter bullshit. Nobody needs to be in a gang. Most people in bad neighborhoods are not and they survive just fine. As for myself, I do take walks now and then, and we have a violent crime problem here. I take my gun with me. If needed, I will blow some lowlife away.

You are correct our deterrents are not strong enough as per the OP shows. Instead of making more stringent laws and penalties against law-abiding citizens, make them for the criminal instead.

Years ago a middle-east family bought a closed down store around the corner from me. I used to walk there for stuff like beer and cigarettes. One time when I went there the cops were leaving. I asked the young clerk what happened, and some drunk went into the store and took some cigarettes that were on display on the counter. So we got into a discussion about stealing.

After he moved here his grandmother back in the middle-east wanted to know of his new environment, so he sent her our local paper. She wrote back with great concern. She said we have more theft in our suburb in one week than the entire middle-east has in a years time. I asked him if that was true and he concurred.

He said back home if you are caught stealing, the police hold you down and off comes your hand, and I don't mean in a hospital either. Steal again and off comes your other hand. There is no third time.

The point I'm making is that a strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.

 

[westwall]

I try and put myself in other people’s shoes to get an idea, a shallow and incomplete idea, of what they are enduring. It is inconceivable that anyone on the Right should try this, because then they might experience something other than small minded certainty of their rightness.

Perhaps it was my upbringing. Where I was taught to Judge Not lest ye be so judged. In other words, I was taught by the Priests and Instructors that the compassion I showed, would be returned when my life was over. If I was intolerant and hate filled, that would be my judgement.

Perhaps it was my parents who taught me that disapproving of an action, was much different than disapproval of a person. One was acceptable, the other wasn’t.

Perhaps it is because I’ve had friends who lived in those neighborhoods and I’ve visited them. I’ve seen their world. And I understand enough to be thankful that I did not grow up in such a place. Although my own upbringing was rough enough. About half my High School Class ended up dead or in jail themselves. I went to the Army instead, but few enough of us did.

Perhaps it is because my beliefs are based upon a foundation of this nation. The founders and their thoughts, and ideals. Including the right to keep and bear arms.

Show me where the Founders thought it was appropriate to deprive someone of their Second Amendment Rights because they had completed their sentence. I would bet you can’t, but the truth is you won’t even try. And it is a given that you can’t, because none of the founders wrote it that I’ve ever been able to find. I’ve looked.

But you want to limit guns to those who you approve of. You’re no better than the Gun Grabbers on the Left. Because you want to restrict them to who you want to be armed. Just as they do.

So rant and rave and bitch and moan. My ideals are based upon the foundation of this Nation. My ideals are based in common sense, and truth. What are yours based upon besides intolerance and the attitude that everyone is always guilty of something.

It's all very well and good to put yourself into another persons shoes.

Might I suggest you place yourself in the shoes of the victims of these predators.

 

[westwall]

So you are finally admitting it's pretty easy for people in America that legally should not have guns, to get guns. Now we're finally getting somewhere.

How about you admitting that the only way to keep a violent predator from getting a gun is to either lock him up.

Or kill him.

Gun bans do nothing but disarm the law abiding.

 

[westwall]

No. I’m that honest. Attempted Murder rarely sees that kind of sentence, anywhere in the nation. Rarely does the accused do more than a decade for such a crime.

There are multiple reasons, but one of the big ones is that the Prisons, are crowded now. And they can’t really stop prosecuting people to make sure that the guys we have no, serve long sentences.

So answer the question I asked. How much more are you willing to pay in taxes to lock everyone up for as long as you think they should be? Are you willing to pay half again as much in taxes? A 50% increase? Are you willing to pay twice as much? Or do you demand that the Justice System do more with less? Lock up more people, build more prisons, house and care for the prisoners, all for less money.

The only people who should be locked up are violent predators. Less than 10% of the criminal population.

 

[john doe 101]

How about you admitting that the only way to keep a violent predator from getting a gun is to either lock him up.

Or kill him.

Gun bans do nothing but disarm the law abiding.

Interesting. Now you're advocating murder. Gun bans or strict gun laws seem to work quite well in every country that uses them. Locking people up doesnt solve the problem either. We by far incarcerate more people than any other first world country and we are still the most violent crime ridden 1st world country on the planet. So you got a 3rd choice?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Interesting. Now you're advocating murder. Gun bans or strict gun laws seem to work quite well in every country that uses them. Locking people up doesnt solve the problem either. We by far incarcerate more people than any other first world country and we are still the most violent crime ridden 1st world country on the planet. So you got a 3rd choice?

"Seem" to work?

Bans do not work, period. Not for drugs. Not for guns. Not for ANYTHING. Not to mention the whole natural right to self defense.

 

[john doe 101]

"Seem" to work?

Bans do not work, period. Not for drugs. Not for guns. Not for ANYTHING. Not to mention the whole natural right to self defense.

I realize in my lifetime nothing will change. I've been resigned to that for a while. Just from a logical perspective, does more guns equate to more safety? You say yes, I say no. We'll never agree. Long after we're gone history will decide the answer to that. I'm pretty confident I'll be correct.

 

[SavannahMann]

That's utter bullshit. Nobody needs to be in a gang. Most people in bad neighborhoods are not and they survive just fine. As for myself, I do take walks now and then, and we have a violent crime problem here. I take my gun with me. If needed, I will blow some lowlife away.

You are correct our deterrents are not strong enough as per the OP shows. Instead of making more stringent laws and penalties against law-abiding citizens, make them for the criminal instead.

Years ago a middle-east family bought a closed down store around the corner from me. I used to walk there for stuff like beer and cigarettes. One time when I went there the cops were leaving. I asked the young clerk what happened, and some drunk went into the store and took some cigarettes that were on display on the counter. So we got into a discussion about stealing.

After he moved here his grandmother back in the middle-east wanted to know of his new environment, so he sent her our local paper. She wrote back with great concern. She said we have more theft in our suburb in one week than the entire middle-east has in a years time. I asked him if that was true and he concurred.

He said back home if you are caught stealing, the police hold you down and off comes your hand, and I don't mean in a hospital either. Steal again and off comes your other hand. There is no third time.

The point I'm making is that a strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.

Nobody needs to be in a gang. Great. Explain why the Militias who came running to the town when the Indians were near were great and patriotic, but the gang members who do the same to their neighborhood are awful. Compare and contrast if you prefer that term.

The truth is you can’t.

Because that is what humans have done since the dawn of time. Our Tribe or Village will fight to protect what we have. We will take from you if we can. Even today, look at the nation. Texas is fighting Federal Mandates. Why? Freedom is the claim, but it is simply put you are not going to tell us what to do in our state. They are opposing the outsiders. People in Washington who would tell them what to do and how to live.

We denounce it when the other side does it, and cheer it when our side does the same thing.

A city council or State Legislature votes to refuse to honor Remainder Requests, and they’re traitors to the nation. Here is an example that is pretty much the earlier version of this same thread. It’s all the Democrats fault.

Democrats love criminals, Illinois edition....sanctuary county releasing violent criminals...

Here we have democrats releasing violent criminals rather than give them to ICE....violent criminals, dangerous criminals........this is why we have crime in our major cities, and why we have gun crime in our major cities.....democrats are insane..... Illinois Sanctuary County Frees 1K Criminal...

www.usmessageboard.com

Ever since that Sanctuary City shit started. I said the same thing over and over. You can’t expect someone to enforce the law they are not charged with. City Cops are empowered to enforce within that city, the City Laws and the State Laws. Sometimes County Laws too. But you get the point. They are trained and certified by the State.

Feds can’t enforce State or City Laws. They are employed by and certified to enforce Federal Laws only. There must be an agreement before the Fed can do anything about State or Local Laws.

The thing the local cops can’t ignore is a warrant. Come up with a warrant and show that the local cops ignored it and you have a great case to send someone to jail. But that isn’t what happens. They are told to hold the guy because we want you to. They are told to call them when you suspect something.

And for that matter, my opinion on the Second Amendment Sanctuary shit is the same. The local cops are not required to enforce federal law. The term used to be used, but it is accurate. Unfunded Mandate. You can’t pass one. It is unconstitutional.

It is why the instant background checks are called into the FBI now, and not the local sheriffs. The Sheriffs sued and complained it was an unfunded mandate, and the courts agreed.

Now, onto your Middle East example. Things like that always make me laugh. You can’t cherry pick that shit. Otherwise you would admit that Norway has a better recidivism rate than we do because they focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

And crime in the Middle East? If a woman reports a rape, she’s liable to be killed for adultery. It was her fault being out without a male relative you see.

But no, you cherry pick it. While ignoring the intolerable elements that also come in. So lets pretend we chop off a guys hand when he’s caught. Then later we find that the storekeeper lied. Do we cut out his tongue for lying? How do we give the guy his hand back?

Our system is designed to give a reasonable punishment to the individual for the crime because we didn’t want instant justice. We wanted a system where guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is what our Ancestors fought for.

But you law and order types always hate the law. So explain to me why if law and order is so important, that the Founders gave about half of the bill of rights, to the rights of the accused? I mean, this was a simpler time wasn’t it? But they still insisted on giving so many rights to the accused. So many restrictions on Government.

Either you hate America, or you hate the Constitution. While you love the Second, you seem to disdain the remaining amendments.

I love America. I love the Constitution, and I would object, loudly, to any effort to subdue it. All of the Amendments matter. Every single one. It is why I support the second, as intended, which you do not.

But hey, suggest your system of chopping off hands. It might fly with a few of the other ignorant jackasses out there. It will never fly with the majority.

 

[westwall]

Interesting. Now you're advocating murder. Gun bans or strict gun laws seem to work quite well in every country that uses them. Locking people up doesnt solve the problem either. We by far incarcerate more people than any other first world country and we are still the most violent crime ridden 1st world country on the planet. So you got a 3rd choice?

Where did I say murder them? If they are attacking you, and you kill them in self defense that is called "Justifiable Homicide".

And, no. Gun bans DON'T work as the 70 plus dead people in Norway, and the 130 plus dead people in Paris prove beyond doubt.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I realize in my lifetime nothing will change. I've been resigned to that for a while. Just from a logical perspective, does more guns equate to more safety? You say yes, I say no. We'll never agree. Long after we're gone history will decide the answer to that. I'm pretty confident I'll be correct.

They will not be more safe simply because people will try to take from others. More guns unequivocally equates to more freedom.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now, onto your Middle East example. Things like that always make me laugh. You can’t cherry pick that shit. Otherwise you would admit that Norway has a better recidivism rate than we do because they focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

And crime in the Middle East? If a woman reports a rape, she’s liable to be killed for adultery. It was her fault being out without a male relative you see.

But no, you cherry pick it. While ignoring the intolerable elements that also come in. So lets pretend we chop off a guys hand when he’s caught. Then later we find that the storekeeper lied. Do we cut out his tongue for lying? How do we give the guy his hand back?

Our system is designed to give a reasonable punishment to the individual for the crime because we didn’t want instant justice. We wanted a system where guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is what our Ancestors fought for.

But you law and order types always hate the law. So explain to me why if law and order is so important, that the Founders gave about half of the bill of rights, to the rights of the accused? I mean, this was a simpler time wasn’t it? But they still insisted on giving so many rights to the accused. So many restrictions on Government.

Either you hate America, or you hate the Constitution. While you love the Second, you seem to disdain the remaining amendments.

I love America. I love the Constitution, and I would object, loudly, to any effort to subdue it. All of the Amendments matter. Every single one. It is why I support the second, as intended, which you do not.

But hey, suggest your system of chopping off hands. It might fly with a few of the other ignorant jackasses out there. It will never fly with the majority.

So where did you get the idea that I wanted us to do that here? I never said that. I was simply giving an example of how a strong enough deterrent works when it's used. That's besides the fact even if we could do that, the taxpayers would have to support the criminal for the rest of his life since he couldn't work. They don't do that in the middle-east.

Now look at San Francisco. The Walgreens are closing up because in order for the police to come out for a shoplifting call, the criminal has to be stealing more than $950.00 of merchandise. What should they have done? Increase the penalties for shoplifting so the criminal spends several days or weeks in jail. Liberalism is the exact opposite of common sense. If they made it harder and more strict penalties for shoplifting, those stores would be open today. After the blacks moved into my suburbs all the major stores had to close down. Why? Because little was done to them when caught shoplifting. Everybody suffers.