What is the solution? Or at least what action should be taken?

[WinterBorn]

I understand the words of the law and the definition of "incite". That you refuse to admit it does not change the facts.

incite means you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

your rights end where mine begin,,,

The law states: "(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot."

It is the urging, counselling, or advising that is against the law.

exactly its not the speech but the intended results

No, it is not. The law does not say that you are guilty if the speech results in a riot.

If you urge, counsel or advise, you are not rioting. Yet you are guilty of inciting to riot.

do you know what the word intended means???


you have to read all the words on the page not just the ones that you choose to

Yes, there is mention of the intent to riot. But the point of the law is the inciting, not the act of rioting.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. **** party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

My first response is in your last paragraph's premise: "the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns" is not on the Democratic/libeal agenda.

Some people may have this knee-jerk reaction, but the only people who bring this claim up (gun confiscations) are those who oppose all form of gun controls.

The H. of Rep. bill is not a gun grabber policy which many gun lovers state, it is a common sense gun control policy meant to keep guns out of the hands of monsters.

At this moment in time Sen. Majority Leader Moscow Mitch ignores the calls to gavel back the Senate to vote on the bill, passed by a bi-partisan H. of Rep. even before the most recent three mass murders (H.R.8 — 116th Congress (2019-2020).

 

[WinterBorn]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. **** party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

I note or I missed it that no one talks about the death penalty being reinstated.

It has been mentioned. The problem is that so few of these lunatics survive the shooting. Almost all die from police fire or by suicide.

 

[Blues Man]

I am not looking for "We needs armed good guys!" or "Ban all privately owned guns!".

I am looking for actual, workable things that can be done to prevent the kinds of tragedies we have seen in the last week.

For conservatives, the time for Thoughts & Prayers is over. If you won't come up with solutions, someone else will. If the population is afraid, they will surrender their freedoms for a sense of safety. You have to do something.

For liberals, the knee-jerk reaction of banning guns is not a viable answer. **** party lines. This is about a balance of safety and individual freedom (especially the freedom to defend ourselves).


So what are the answer(s)?

Virginia Project Exile

 

[progressive hunter]

incite means you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

your rights end where mine begin,,,

The law states: "(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot."

It is the urging, counselling, or advising that is against the law.

exactly its not the speech but the intended results

No, it is not. The law does not say that you are guilty if the speech results in a riot.

If you urge, counsel or advise, you are not rioting. Yet you are guilty of inciting to riot.

do you know what the word intended means???


you have to read all the words on the page not just the ones that you choose to

Yes, there is mention of the intent to riot. But the point of the law is the inciting, not the act of rioting.

exactly,,, they intend to riot which will violate another persons rights,,,

its right there but you just cant seem to grasp it,,,

can they ban the word dog???
if so why??
if not why??

 

[WinterBorn]

The law states: "(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot."

It is the urging, counselling, or advising that is against the law.

exactly its not the speech but the intended results

No, it is not. The law does not say that you are guilty if the speech results in a riot.

If you urge, counsel or advise, you are not rioting. Yet you are guilty of inciting to riot.

do you know what the word intended means???


you have to read all the words on the page not just the ones that you choose to

Yes, there is mention of the intent to riot. But the point of the law is the inciting, not the act of rioting.

exactly,,, they intend to riot which will violate another persons rights,,,

its right there but you just cant seem to grasp it,,,

can they ban the word dog???
if so why??
if not why??

Rioting is illegal.

Inciting to riot is a separate and different charge.

YOu cannot be charged with rioting if a riot does not occur. You CAN be charged with inciting a riot if a riot does not occur.

Standing before a group of people and encouraging them to riot and working them up is illegal.

 

[progressive hunter]

exactly its not the speech but the intended results

No, it is not. The law does not say that you are guilty if the speech results in a riot.

If you urge, counsel or advise, you are not rioting. Yet you are guilty of inciting to riot.

do you know what the word intended means???


you have to read all the words on the page not just the ones that you choose to

Yes, there is mention of the intent to riot. But the point of the law is the inciting, not the act of rioting.

exactly,,, they intend to riot which will violate another persons rights,,,

its right there but you just cant seem to grasp it,,,

can they ban the word dog???
if so why??
if not why??

Rioting is illegal.

Inciting to riot is a separate and different charge.

YOu cannot be charged with rioting if a riot does not occur. You CAN be charged with inciting a riot if a riot does not occur.

Standing before a group of people and encouraging them to riot and working them up is illegal.

and thats where intent comes in,,,you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

so so close,,,

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.

Clause 15 & 16 of Art I, sec 8 of COTUS is instructive.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, it is not. The law does not say that you are guilty if the speech results in a riot.

If you urge, counsel or advise, you are not rioting. Yet you are guilty of inciting to riot.

do you know what the word intended means???


you have to read all the words on the page not just the ones that you choose to

Yes, there is mention of the intent to riot. But the point of the law is the inciting, not the act of rioting.

exactly,,, they intend to riot which will violate another persons rights,,,

its right there but you just cant seem to grasp it,,,

can they ban the word dog???
if so why??
if not why??

Rioting is illegal.

Inciting to riot is a separate and different charge.

YOu cannot be charged with rioting if a riot does not occur. You CAN be charged with inciting a riot if a riot does not occur.

Standing before a group of people and encouraging them to riot and working them up is illegal.

and thats where intent comes in,,,you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

so so close,,,

And encouraging others to do so is a separate charge.

 

[progressive hunter]

do you know what the word intended means???


you have to read all the words on the page not just the ones that you choose to

Yes, there is mention of the intent to riot. But the point of the law is the inciting, not the act of rioting.

exactly,,, they intend to riot which will violate another persons rights,,,

its right there but you just cant seem to grasp it,,,

can they ban the word dog???
if so why??
if not why??

Rioting is illegal.

Inciting to riot is a separate and different charge.

YOu cannot be charged with rioting if a riot does not occur. You CAN be charged with inciting a riot if a riot does not occur.

Standing before a group of people and encouraging them to riot and working them up is illegal.

and thats where intent comes in,,,you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

so so close,,,

And encouraging others to do so is a separate charge.

to do what??

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.

Clause 15 & 16 of Art I, sec 8 of COTUS is instructive.

We should have no security problems in our free States or the Expense of alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, there is mention of the intent to riot. But the point of the law is the inciting, not the act of rioting.

exactly,,, they intend to riot which will violate another persons rights,,,

its right there but you just cant seem to grasp it,,,

can they ban the word dog???
if so why??
if not why??

Rioting is illegal.

Inciting to riot is a separate and different charge.

YOu cannot be charged with rioting if a riot does not occur. You CAN be charged with inciting a riot if a riot does not occur.

Standing before a group of people and encouraging them to riot and working them up is illegal.

and thats where intent comes in,,,you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

so so close,,,

And encouraging others to do so is a separate charge.

to do what??

To riot. They will be arrested for rioting, and you will be arrested for inciting (encouraging) them to riot.

The law, as I quoted it, states that you can be prosecuted for encouraging others to riot, if there is a clear and present danger of a riot. It does not say "if a riot occurs". So you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. That is separate from the actual riot, and not even dependent on a riot occurring.

 

[whitehall]

What we are facing is hypocrite lefties who are afraid of discriminating against crazy people and illegal aliens as well as convicted criminals. The monster who murdered 30 people at Va.Tech Blacksburg was undergoing court ordered psychiatric counseling and every student and professor knew he was crazy but he was able to "legally" purchase firearms because the democrat majority in Va decided that the rights of mentally unstable people were more important than the safety of citizens. We need to keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people but democrats would rather use the issue as a political tool.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.

Clause 15 & 16 of Art I, sec 8 of COTUS is instructive.

We should have no security problems in our free States or the Expense of alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

You keep saying what should not be happening. But it is clearly happening.

 

[progressive hunter]

exactly,,, they intend to riot which will violate another persons rights,,,

its right there but you just cant seem to grasp it,,,

can they ban the word dog???
if so why??
if not why??

Rioting is illegal.

Inciting to riot is a separate and different charge.

YOu cannot be charged with rioting if a riot does not occur. You CAN be charged with inciting a riot if a riot does not occur.

Standing before a group of people and encouraging them to riot and working them up is illegal.

and thats where intent comes in,,,you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

so so close,,,

And encouraging others to do so is a separate charge.

to do what??

To riot. They will be arrested for rioting, and you will be arrested for inciting (encouraging) them to riot.

The law, as I quoted it, states that you can be prosecuted for encouraging others to riot, if there is a clear and present danger of a riot. It does not say "if a riot occurs". So you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. That is separate from the actual riot, and not even dependent on a riot occurring.

you keep repeating the same thing and I keep agreeing with you,,,

its just you lack critical thinking skills as to why its illegal,,,

 

[WinterBorn]

What we are facing is hypocrite lefties who are afraid of discriminating against crazy people and illegal aliens as well as convicted criminals. The monster who murdered 30 people at Va.Tech Blacksburg was undergoing court ordered psychiatric counseling and every student and professor knew he was crazy but he was able to "legally" purchase firearms because the democrat majority in Va decided that the rights of mentally unstable people were more important than the safety of citizens. We need to keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people but democrats would rather use the issue as a political tool.

I agree with what you said. But I also think that the mental health professional who treat these people and do not report them to the NICS database should be prosecuted as well.

 

[WinterBorn]

Rioting is illegal.

Inciting to riot is a separate and different charge.

YOu cannot be charged with rioting if a riot does not occur. You CAN be charged with inciting a riot if a riot does not occur.

Standing before a group of people and encouraging them to riot and working them up is illegal.

and thats where intent comes in,,,you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

so so close,,,

And encouraging others to do so is a separate charge.

to do what??

To riot. They will be arrested for rioting, and you will be arrested for inciting (encouraging) them to riot.

The law, as I quoted it, states that you can be prosecuted for encouraging others to riot, if there is a clear and present danger of a riot. It does not say "if a riot occurs". So you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. That is separate from the actual riot, and not even dependent on a riot occurring.

you keep repeating the same thing and I keep agreeing with you,,,

its just you lack critical thinking skills as to why its illegal,,,

My critical thinking skills are fine. As is my grasp of the english language.

It is illegal because one person isn't much of a riot. But having worked up dozens or more into a frenzy causes a problem.

The actual wording of the law is about encouraging people to riot if there is a clear and present danger of a riot. The law does not have to state that the riot actually occurs.

For example, if you were whipping a crowd of 30 people into a frenzy to riot, and encouraging them to do so, when 100 cops show up and stop the riot from happening, you can still be arrested for inciting a riot. The word "inciting" is the difference.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.

Clause 15 & 16 of Art I, sec 8 of COTUS is instructive.

We should have no security problems in our free States or the Expense of alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

You keep saying what should not be happening. But it is clearly happening.

and thats where intent comes in,,,you intend to violate another persons rights,,,

so so close,,,

And encouraging others to do so is a separate charge.

to do what??

To riot. They will be arrested for rioting, and you will be arrested for inciting (encouraging) them to riot.

The law, as I quoted it, states that you can be prosecuted for encouraging others to riot, if there is a clear and present danger of a riot. It does not say "if a riot occurs". So you can be prosecuted for encouraging or urging people to riot. That is separate from the actual riot, and not even dependent on a riot occurring.

you keep repeating the same thing and I keep agreeing with you,,,

its just you lack critical thinking skills as to why its illegal,,,

My critical thinking skills are fine. As is my grasp of the english language.

It is illegal because one person isn't much of a riot. But having worked up dozens or more into a frenzy causes a problem.

The actual wording of the law is about encouraging people to riot if there is a clear and present danger of a riot. The law does not have to state that the riot actually occurs.

For example, if you were whipping a crowd of 30 people into a frenzy to riot, and encouraging them to do so, when 100 cops show up and stop the riot from happening, you can still be arrested for inciting a riot. The word "inciting" is the difference.

and that goes back to intent to violate another persons rights,,,

IE,,, your rights end where others begin,,,

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.

Clause 15 & 16 of Art I, sec 8 of COTUS is instructive.

We should have no security problems in our free States or the Expense of alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

You keep saying what should not be happening. But it is clearly happening.

...not enough Faith to go around on the right wing? Our Constitution is Express, not implied in any way.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.

Clause 15 & 16 of Art I, sec 8 of COTUS is instructive.

We should have no security problems in our free States or the Expense of alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

You keep saying what should not be happening. But it is clearly happening.

...not enough Faith to go around on the right wing? Our Constitution is Express, not implied in any way.

What? Your comment does not relate, in any way, to what I posted and you quoted.