Guns are to blame--not people.

[Rigby5]

Gun laws don't work because we don't have a consistent national gun law with enforcement.

California has the strongest gun laws, and they come in 44th in Gun deaths.
Illinois has 8th in gun laws, and they come in 35th in gun deaths.


MEANWHILE-
Mississippi is 50th in gun laws, and they come in SECOND in gun deaths. (The first is Alaska, but that might be an anomaly because it is sparsely populated.)
Louisiana is 33rd in gun laws, and comes in sixth in gun deaths.
Your state comes in 25th in laws, and 22nd in gun deaths.




Ray always has an excuse. So you mean the police would actually have to do WORK for those high salaries? OH MY GOD, what a concept. I thought this job was just driving around, hassling black drivers and eating fucking donuts. You mean they are supposed to conduct INVESTIGATIONS? Who knew?

They don't investigate murders because they don't care. When that female police officer was shot last year, they turned over every rock until they caught her killers. If it's some black person, meh, just phone it in, it's not like you are going to get fired or anything. those donuts aren't going to eat themselves.

Wrong.
CA has a gun death rate of 9.5 per 100, 000, so is rated 16th and is above average in gun deaths.

Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality

www.cdc.gov

That is worse than even IL, which is 8, and Iowa, which is 6.7.

There is zero correlation between gun deaths and legislation, and there never could be because one intent on murder is not at all ever going to be deterred by legislation penalizing the illegal acquisition of a gun.
It could never be at all difficult for anyone to illegally obtain a firearm because the underground cash economy of illegal drugs has to always be awash in guns.

The real point of gun laws is to make money for the government, and make people more passive, frightened, and dependent upon police.

 

[Rigby5]

Um, yeah, given every middle east country has been overthrown at least once in my lifetime, I'm not sure that's something we want to emulate.

Nonsense.
Instability in the Mideast is entirely due to western imperialism and colonialism.
About the only time there was a popular uprising was Algeria throwing out the French occupiers.
When the Arab Spring started with the rebellion in Tunisia,
And clearly that was over foreign colonialism.
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was a foreign puppet.
{...
President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had ruled Tunisia since 1987, mostly as a one-party state with the Democratic Constitutional Rally (RCD). His government was characterised by the development of Tunisia's private sector in favor of foreign investment, and the repression of political opposition. Foreign media and NGOs criticised his government, which was supported by the United States and France. As a result, the initial reactions to Ben Ali's abuses by the U.S. and France were muted, and most instances of socio-political protest in the country, when they occurred at all, rarely made major news headlines.[34]
...}

 

[Rigby5]

Rights are never absolute. They are conditional. They are conditional upon your behavior. Your freedom of speech does not give you the right to threaten to murder someone. Your freedom of Religion does not give you the right to sacrifice animals or people to your god.

Your rights are always conditional, including the right to keep and bear arms. You have posted here many times about how irresponsible it is to allow violent criminals out of jail where they commit more crimes. What this thread started out with is an effort to reduce the numbers of violent crimes that are committed by potentially or allegedly violent people.

To cover this again. Between the point of A) The action which got the suspect arrested. And B) Where his guilt is adjudged, the advocate of the change wants to have the suspects disarmed.

Again surrendering firearms during bail, is common. There are a number of news stories that cover the situation repeatedly. People accused, not convicted of a crime, released on conditional bail. Conditional bail, means that they do not engage in specific activity during their time out of jail.

Conditions have included not associating with known criminals. Not drinking or using drugs. And not having access to weapons is another of those conditions in many cases.

This is not a permanent revocation of the right to keep and bear arms. That will be decided after the trial, when the court determines if you are Guilty of the crimes.

If the court decides you are not guilty, then your weapons are supposed to be returned to you.

Now, what is wrong with that? We do it a thousand times a day in this nation. We do it from coast to coast, and border to border. We are doing it even as you read this. A Judge is setting conditions of bail including the restriction of owning or possessing firearms.

2/3 of Domestic Violence Offenders are rearrested within five years.

The Lasting Consequences of Repeat Domestic Violence Charges

Repeat offenses can change your life in countless ways.

www.monroekinglaw.com

These are the habitual offenders, the repeat offenders you rail about when it is a black guy in Chicago. These are the people you scream the Liberals are trying to destroy the country by not locking them up and throwing away the key.

Now, the Liberals are arguing that these folks should, until their case is concluded, lose the right to possess firearms. Now, you and I know they can still get their hands on guns, but in doing so they risk a Felony Conviction later.

So what about this particular set of circumstances speaks to you personally? It isn’t the ideal of the outrage. We are talking about people accused of crimes which all too often lead to murder. Is it you who was accused of it at some point?

Rights are conditional, but ONLY in compromise to protect the rights of others.
Federal gun control is totally and completely illegal, and serves the rights of no one at all.
The federal government has ZERO constitutional authorization for any federal gun laws.
Not a single one can possibly be legal in any way.

 

[SavannahMann]

The OP talks about a permanent suspension of a right, not a temporary restraint until their trial date. Convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence does not go away. It's a judgement that lasts a lifetime. I have no problem with a judge suspending their right to a firearm for a week or two. The cases I spoke about in Chicago involve an arrest of a felon who still carries guns around and let out on bail the very same day. In select cases they simply get another one and commit theft, assault and even death before their trial. An arrest of being in possession of a firearm as a felon should have bail set at a half-million dollars and a 10 year minimum prison sentence.

My point is that rights being taken away over something so innocuous as words is a constitutional violation. You don't have to threaten somebody with murder to be arrested and convicted of domestic misdemeanor charges. You and your brother could get into an argument and you say I'm going to bash your head in. That according to your link and others I have found can be used to charge somebody for a domestic misdemeanor and again, comes with a permanent ban on every being in possession of a firearm for life if convicted.

My wife and I were discussing politics. Past, Present, and Future. We used Welfare Reform during the Clinton Admin as an example. Compromise is missing.

In politics and diplomacy, a Compromise is when nobody is happy, but they can live with the outcome.

If we are being honest. The Activist pushing this knows good and well that they aren’t going to get a permanent ban. Like a negotiation, she is asking for it hoping to meet halfway.

Everyone knows she’s not going to get that. But the temporary restriction is possible, and probably necessary. Standing on the hill of the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms while women are being threatened. And killed. By abusive partners is a poor choice.

A couple decades ago the compromise would be a done deal. Now it is all about defeating your enemy. Even if victory does not serve your interests.

In this case your victory will be thrown back in your face every time a woman is killed by her spouse. The result will be a defacto law instead of an actual one. The surrender of firearms will end up being written into every DV bail agreement. And the spouses will sign it with no intention of obeying the clause.

That will lead to weapons violations that are more serious and make the offender a felon. That isn’t good for your cause. It isn’t good for anyone.

This issue is a loser. Not the Second. But defending it in the case of domestic violence offenders. You say harsh words. Everyone hears wife beater.

In 1987 I was going through training to be a Security Guard. A cop from the LAPD was teaching the course. He told us if anyone ever had to use force to arrest a suspect. Tell the crowd the guy was a child molester. People hate them. And their description of events will be in your favor.

So when you say harsh words or vague threat. The regular people are hearing wife beater. Child abuser. And you defending the fellow on principle is not going to go well. It may not be fair. It may not be entirely true. It is realistically what happens. And dealing with the reality as perceived is the first thing any of us have to do.

 

[Rigby5]

The way to make women safer after domestic violence, is for them to get armed and get a divorce.
There is no way to magically make the whole world safe so someone never has to defend themselves.
Is a personal responsibility, not a function of government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My wife and I were discussing politics. Past, Present, and Future. We used Welfare Reform during the Clinton Admin as an example. Compromise is missing.

In politics and diplomacy, a Compromise is when nobody is happy, but they can live with the outcome.

If we are being honest. The Activist pushing this knows good and well that they aren’t going to get a permanent ban. Like a negotiation, she is asking for it hoping to meet halfway.

Everyone knows she’s not going to get that. But the temporary restriction is possible, and probably necessary. Standing on the hill of the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms while women are being threatened. And killed. By abusive partners is a poor choice.

A couple decades ago the compromise would be a done deal. Now it is all about defeating your enemy. Even if victory does not serve your interests.

In this case your victory will be thrown back in your face every time a woman is killed by her spouse. The result will be a defacto law instead of an actual one. The surrender of firearms will end up being written into every DV bail agreement. And the spouses will sign it with no intention of obeying the clause.

That will lead to weapons violations that are more serious and make the offender a felon. That isn’t good for your cause. It isn’t good for anyone.

This issue is a loser. Not the Second. But defending it in the case of domestic violence offenders. You say harsh words. Everyone hears wife beater.

In 1987 I was going through training to be a Security Guard. A cop from the LAPD was teaching the course. He told us if anyone ever had to use force to arrest a suspect. Tell the crowd the guy was a child molester. People hate them. And their description of events will be in your favor.

So when you say harsh words or vague threat. The regular people are hearing wife beater. Child abuser. And you defending the fellow on principle is not going to go well. It may not be fair. It may not be entirely true. It is realistically what happens. And dealing with the reality as perceived is the first thing any of us have to do.

Agreed but sometimes the reality is based on a bunch of lawmakers looking to buy votes at the expense of people not really guilty of anything. My concern is that the Constitution becomes so fragile to buy a vote that any right we have can be taken away at the slightest infraction of the law such as this misdemeanor we're talking about. A felon? That's a different ball game altogether.

There is no compromising between the parties any longer. The left went from Democrats to liberals, from liberals to progressives, and now from progressives to socialist Democrats, whatever the hell that is. The ultimate goal is Communism, and you can't have any common ground between Communism and Constitutionalsim. You'd have better luck finding common ground between Israel and the Palestinians.

The left went from legislating on behalf of the country to legislating on what benefits the party. They want to add two more states, because it would benefit the country? No, because it would benefit the party. They want to expand the justices of the Supreme Court. Why, because it benefits the country? No, because it benefits the party. They wouldn't give Trump a dime for his wall, because it benefits the country? No, because it benefits the party. If you look close enough, everything they do is on behalf of benefiting the party, including this phony Voters Rights lie they are trying to pass now. Everything for Big Brother.

If you listen to honest Palestinians they say the only way for peace is to kill all the Jews. So what's the half-way point on that, allow them to kill half the Jews? And this is where we Republicans are today. Because if we meet them half-way on strengthening their party, it weakens ours by the same degree. Who in their right mind would do that? As for asking them to meet us half way on issues that benefit the country, their response is.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Anticipation is not the basis for government use of force to violate rights.

Just wait until they are dead.

 

[JoeB131]

There is only so many detectives to solve an overwhelming amount of murders in commie cities like yours.

the CPD has 14,000 cops. They have maybe 700 murders. Assuming it take two weeks to resolve a murder case, they could assigned 200 cops to each murder and still be fine.

They just don't care if it isn't a white person.

The police are doing their jobs, but it's much tougher in a city that fosters crime instead of victims. Yes you think their job is driving around eating doughnuts, because you think real life is what you see in movies on television.

Actually, I WISH the cops were as good as the ones on the non-stop Cop-aganda we get on TV.

 

[JoeB131]

If you listen to honest Palestinians they say the only way for peace is to kill all the Jews. So what's the half-way point on that, allow them to kill half the Jews? And this is where we Republicans are today. Because if we meet them half-way on strengthening their party, it weakens ours by the same degree. Who in their right mind would do that? As for asking them to meet us half way on issues that benefit the country, their response is.

Trump was an illegitimate president. There was no comprimising with him.

Nothing he proposed benefited the country. Not One fucking thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong.
CA has a gun death rate of 9.5 per 100, 000, so is rated 16th and is above average in gun deaths.

I was going off the site that Welfare Ray posted.

Now sit down, shut up and mind your own business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the CPD has 14,000 cops. They have maybe 700 murders. Assuming it take two weeks to resolve a murder case, they could assigned 200 cops to each murder and still be fine.

They just don't care if it isn't a white person.

Two weeks to solve a murder? Yeah, they just tell those lab people to hurry their ass up, tell those forensic science people to quit looking into micro scopes and come up with names, they tell the city coroner to start cutting faster.

Cops are not detectives. They call them detectives for a reason.

Actually, I WISH the cops were as good as the ones on the non-stop Cop-aganda we get on TV.

Good. Start watching more television and perhaps you'll think better of your police force since you can't decipher reality from fiction with severe OCD.

 

[Captain Caveman]

All we have to do is look to Europe to see where this is going with the left. Of course they're going to take the guns. They do it in every country that they can.

It's one of two things, you're purposely speaking crap to flame, or you're fucking retarded moron.

I suggest you make an effort to read up on other countries gun laws because you're one heck of a retard.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's one of two things, you're purposely speaking crap to flame, or you're fucking retarded moron.
I suggest you make an effort to read up on other countries gun laws because you're one heck of a retard.

Makes you feel better about yourself when you do that, doesn't it?

 

[SavannahMann]

Agreed but sometimes the reality is based on a bunch of lawmakers looking to buy votes at the expense of people not really guilty of anything. My concern is that the Constitution becomes so fragile to buy a vote that any right we have can be taken away at the slightest infraction of the law such as this misdemeanor we're talking about. A felon? That's a different ball game altogether.

There is no compromising between the parties any longer. The left went from Democrats to liberals, from liberals to progressives, and now from progressives to socialist Democrats, whatever the hell that is. The ultimate goal is Communism, and you can't have any common ground between Communism and Constitutionalsim. You'd have better luck finding common ground between Israel and the Palestinians.

The left went from legislating on behalf of the country to legislating on what benefits the party. They want to add two more states, because it would benefit the country? No, because it would benefit the party. They want to expand the justices of the Supreme Court. Why, because it benefits the country? No, because it benefits the party. They wouldn't give Trump a dime for his wall, because it benefits the country? No, because it benefits the party. If you look close enough, everything they do is on behalf of benefiting the party, including this phony Voters Rights lie they are trying to pass now. Everything for Big Brother.

If you listen to honest Palestinians they say the only way for peace is to kill all the Jews. So what's the half-way point on that, allow them to kill half the Jews? And this is where we Republicans are today. Because if we meet them half-way on strengthening their party, it weakens ours by the same degree. Who in their right mind would do that? As for asking them to meet us half way on issues that benefit the country, their response is.

View attachment 593081

I agree, to a certain extent. However, I am more centrist. I am liberal on some issues, like Choice. And I am conservative on others, like the Second. I’ve posted before that I’m a member of both the NRA and the ACLU. All of the amendments matter to me, not just one, or excluding one.

Now, there is a lot of truth regarding where the Democrats are today, but the mirror image of the Conservatives is the same. They have gone from conservative, to radical, on their own as well.

Now, both sides are extremist, and unreasonable. I honestly give credit to the Republicans of old, as being right about some issues. I honestly give them a hard time for being wrong about some issues.

Remember, I was one who a year into Trump’s admin said that the opposition to Trump was so unreasonable that if he healed a soldier at Walter Reed with a miracle touch, the Democrats would be demanding he be charged for practicing medicine without a license.

I can now honestly say the same about Biden. The opposition is unreasonable, not based upon policy, or principles, other than hatred. Now, the childish answer is that they do it too. They did it before, and we’re going to pay them back.

It doesn’t make sense to live that way. You don’t save a nation that way, you don’t win an argument that way, you only exacerbate the problems. You make it worse.

This issue is a loser. But the Right will fight it to the death because they won’t even consider trying to compromise. It is all about opposing them no matter what. I honestly think that if the Democrats suddenly announced they were now pro Life, the Republicans would be Pro Choice in an hour just on the knee jerk need to be against them. The reverse is true as well.

Everyone is so busy trying to destroy THEM they forget what the entire purpose of the argument is, to discuss and debate an issue, not the horrible people on the other side.

 

[JoeB131]

Two weeks to solve a murder? Yeah, they just tell those lab people to hurry their ass up, tell those forensic science people to quit looking into micro scopes and come up with names, they tell the city coroner to start cutting faster.

Cops are not detectives. They call them detectives for a reason.

Good point. More investigating real crime, less pulling people over for bullshit traffic violations.

Good. Start watching more television and perhaps you'll think better of your police force since you can't decipher reality from fiction with severe OCD.

Actually, I won't think better of them until they start holding their bad apples to account.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree, to a certain extent. However, I am more centrist. I am liberal on some issues, like Choice. And I am conservative on others, like the Second. I’ve posted before that I’m a member of both the NRA and the ACLU. All of the amendments matter to me, not just one, or excluding one.

Now, there is a lot of truth regarding where the Democrats are today, but the mirror image of the Conservatives is the same. They have gone from conservative, to radical, on their own as well.

Now, both sides are extremist, and unreasonable. I honestly give credit to the Republicans of old, as being right about some issues. I honestly give them a hard time for being wrong about some issues.

Remember, I was one who a year into Trump’s admin said that the opposition to Trump was so unreasonable that if he healed a soldier at Walter Reed with a miracle touch, the Democrats would be demanding he be charged for practicing medicine without a license.

I can now honestly say the same about Biden. The opposition is unreasonable, not based upon policy, or principles, other than hatred. Now, the childish answer is that they do it too. They did it before, and we’re going to pay them back.

It doesn’t make sense to live that way. You don’t save a nation that way, you don’t win an argument that way, you only exacerbate the problems. You make it worse.

This issue is a loser. But the Right will fight it to the death because they won’t even consider trying to compromise. It is all about opposing them no matter what. I honestly think that if the Democrats suddenly announced they were now pro Life, the Republicans would be Pro Choice in an hour just on the knee jerk need to be against them. The reverse is true as well.

Everyone is so busy trying to destroy THEM they forget what the entire purpose of the argument is, to discuss and debate an issue, not the horrible people on the other side.

I honestly don't know what you mean by extremest on the right outside of abortion, but Republicans have always been that way on that one issue. I don't really believe their stance on it comes from the heart. Many have to act like it due to keeping the religious vote happy. I for one am pro-choice because I'm a smaller government Republican. If people are having abortions, it's really none of my business. You have to deal with your own conscience, not me.

I don't know how you can compare the way Republicans are treating Dementia as unreasonable and what they did to Trump. His entire platform is about reversing everything Trump did or was going to do his second term. Unlike Trump who gave us a great economy and made policies to benefit most all Americans, the commies still attacked him, not only attacked him, but conducted two phony impeachments with no impeachable offenses. Can you show me anything the Republicans have done that even compares?

Criticism of this old fool is not personal like the commies with Trump, the man is ruining our country. It's costing us a lot of money and for what, to show us that you're going to do everything opposite of Trump? Besides the great expense of having this joker in the White House, now they want to blow 5 trillion dollars (CBO's estimate) of our tax dollars to mostly buy votes and keep their constituents happy. Not only that, but unconstitutionally have the federal government takeover our entire election system. When did Trump or the Republicans do anything close to that?
So unless you can give me any examples of how the Republicans are anyway like the Democrats, I think your statement was not really very thought out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good point. More investigating real crime, less pulling people over for bullshit traffic violations.

What is it that you don't understand? Cops don't investigate, they enforce laws. Detectives investigate.

Actually, I won't think better of them until they start holding their bad apples to account.

They do, but what you consider bad apples and real bad apples are two different things.

 

[JoeB131]

What is it that you don't understand? Cops don't investigate, they enforce laws. Detectives investigate.

Detectives are cops, and every officer gets training in investigative techniques...

They do, but what you consider bad apples and real bad apples are two different things.

Well, when you approach every police shooting as "The Darkie had it coming", then you probably aren't going see the apple as bad no matter how rotten and wormed filled it is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Detectives are cops, and every officer gets training in investigative techniques...

No, detectives were usually once cops, but got the proper training to become a detective. However cops are not detectives. They get some minor investigative training, but don't handle serious issues like murder. That's why the police supervisor calls in detectives on those cases. All police do is keep people away from the evidence or preserve evidence that may become tainted before the detectives get to the scene.

Well, when you approach every police shooting as "The Darkie had it coming", then you probably aren't going see the apple as bad no matter how rotten and wormed filled it is.

And you make my point. You create these stories in your head and along with the movies you watch, think they are reality. But they are not, they are nothing more than a person who is in deep need of professional psychological help.

 

[1stNickD]

The biggest problem in Ohio is that our gun laws simply are not strong enough. Domestic violence policy expert Julia Webber serves as the implementation director of the Gifford’s Law Center, a national organization striving to make America safer by working to end gun violence.

“So, unfortunately, and tragically, too many people who have lost their lives as a result of domestic violence and how often that’s been connected to use of firearms,” said Webber.

While federal laws are in place, the Gifford’s Law Center says Ohio doesn’t have any laws stopping people who are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from buying firearms or ammunition and the same goes for those who have domestic violence protective orders against them.

The center said there are also no state laws requiring the removal or surrender of firearms from a suspect when a protection order is issued in domestic violence cases.

“We want to ensure that we actually allow for relinquishment, and surrender or seizure, if necessary, to ensure that those firearms are separated from someone who’s about to be violent,” Webber said.

Domestic violence cases on the rise in Ohio, experts believe state’s gun laws to blame

Domestic violence cases on the rise in Ohio, experts believe our state’s gun laws are to blame

www.cleveland19.com

When you ask leftists about the government taking our guns, they say nobody wants to take away your guns. Well here is a leftist that says they do.

What this kook is saying is that if your girlfriend or wife files a protection order against you, the government should be allowed to come to your home and take away your firearms even if no violence was involved. Simply get a protection order and that's all that should be needed to violate your constitutional rights. What is a misdemeanor domestic violence? I never heard of it, so I looked it up. Here is what I found for our state:

Threatening to cause harm to a family member or household member, even if you do not physically assault the person, can still result in a fourth-degree misdemeanor.

So if you tell your girlfriend or wife "Yeah, and I'll slap you around" you can be charged with this misdemeanor domestic violence law and have your firearms taken away just for that if it was up to this Julia Weber person.

The far left absolutely wants to remove guns from law abiding citizens. once that occurs the constitution an our form of government will be gone in less than 6 weeks. If the let is not removed from congress this year o we will be gone within 6 years, second amendment or not.