It is funny because by the time you load a musket, the criminal has already shot and killed you.
Anybody that thinks our founders never thought of advanced weaponry is pulling their own leg. Of course they knew weapons would advance as they years went on, but like any part of the Constitution, there is an amendment process for changing times.
Of course it takes a very strong majority to change the Constitution. That's because the founders realized that there would be simple majorities when it comes to issues of change. They didn't want the Constitution being changed every time a majority took place.
We in the United States have learned that no law stops all illegal activity. Drug usage is the best example. They have been illegal as long as I've been alive, yet our prisons are full of offenders. The problem seems to be getting worse as well.
Of course if I wanted to purchase illegal narcotics, it would take me some time to do because I'm a law abiding citizen. The laws do nothing for criminals because they don't care about laws.
The only thing we do know for sure is that the only real defense against criminal activity is with a strong enough deterrent. If you really want to cut murders in half, then you need to get rid of liberal judges, exhaust all appeals for murderers within six months, and have public executions. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns we have in society. We would be much safer because of a stronger deterrent.
This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.
This is also further confirmation of the contempt for the rule of law common to most conservatives; the right to appeal has nothing to do with 'liberal judges,' and shouldn't be abridged as a consequence of that contempt for the rule of law.
That you oppose the death penalty shows your contempt for justice.
People like you say the death penalty isn't a deterrent yet offer nothing in the way of suggestions as to what would be.
Most people who commit crimes have no intentions on being caught. Nothing is really a "deterrent." Is getting a ticket a deterrent to speeding? Do drug laws work as a deterrent? No.
The reason for locking people up is to separate them from the rest of society, so that they can't harm others, or as a form of punishment. It has never deterred people from committing crimes, especially when it comes to psychopaths who want to shoot up schools and things like that.
That's because our kind of punishment offers no deterrent.
Many years ago a middle-east family opened a store at the corner of my street. I used to go in there all the time. After the clerk experienced a problem with shoplifters, we got into a discussion about crime here in the US.
He was a young lad at the age of 18, and his grandmother back in the middle-east wanted to know how he was getting along in the new land. So he sent her one of our local newspapers because she could speak and read English.
She wrote back with great concern. She stated we have more theft in our little suburb in one week than the entire middle-east has in one year. I asked him if that was true, and he concurred.
He said where he was from, they had outside markets and some picnic tables set up for the shoppers. He said if a woman lay her purse on a table and left it unattended, it would be right back there the following day. People would cross the street to be nowhere near it.
He said in his country, if you get caught stealing once, off comes your hand, and not at a hospital either; right there on the table. Steal a second time, and your other hand comes off. There is no third time.
He said here they stole three packs of cigarettes, and when the police came, they said if he comes back again, call the police and they will kick him out of the store. That's why people come here to steal he said.
