Posted: 3/14/2012 8:11:01 AM EDT
|
The thought of unwashed masses carrying without government approval seems to scare the bejeezus out of people, even here. On the other hand, folks on Arfcom love freedom. Well, they like gun freedom, they aren't really all that fond of any other kind of freedom and would prefer the government stop people from doing anything they don't like (smoking pot, listening to rock music, chewing with their mouth open, etc.). This actually seems to cause a significant degree of consternation within the hive as members simply have no way to reconcile these two views. I have a proposal that may serve to simplify the matter for you:
1: the government has no business declaring who (adults) may or may not carry a weapon. Permits are a ridiculous infringement and should be done away with. 2: basic firearm safety and marksmanship is a desirable knowledge set and should be mandatory elements of the curriculum in all public and private schools, K-12. Further, advanced marksmanship is a desirable knowledge set and contributes to public safety so defensive rifle or pistol courses should be tax deductible. Problem solved, no? |
|
Quoted:
I have a proposal that may serve to simplify the matter for you: 1: the government has no business declaring who (adults) may or may not carry a weapon. Permits are a ridiculous infringement and should be done away with. 2: basic firearm safety and marksmanship is a desirable knowledge set and should be mandatory elements of the curriculum in all public and private schools, K-12. Further, advanced marksmanship is a desirable knowledge set and contributes to public safety so defensive rifle or pistol courses should be tax deductible. Problem solved, no? Been proposed before here. No. |
|
Quoted:
1: Maybe I'm reading too deeply into your proposal but I don't want government removing laws that prohibit gun ownership by felons. 2: I could get behind it as an elective, but not as curriculum. You're not reading too deeply. Men who can't be trusted with arms should not be trusted with motor vehicles, hammers, or cans of soup. Either a man has paid his debt and his rights should be restored, or he should remain locked up. On another note, I don't believe we should lock people up as much as we do. All we're doing is sending them to criminal college. Instead, most offenses should be punishable by beating or hanging. |
|
Quoted:
You're not reading too deeply. Men who can't be trusted with arms should not be trusted with motor vehicles, hammers, or cans of soup. Either a man has paid his debt and his rights should be restored, or he should remain locked up. On another note, I don't believe we should lock people up as much as we do. All we're doing is sending them to criminal college. Instead, most offenses should be punishable by beating or hanging. We can't lock up criminals forever. Beating or hanging? When you're ready to provide some realistic proposals, get back to us We don't lock up people "too much". They are generally given a ton of alternatives to incerceration before they are ever sentenced to jail time. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're not reading too deeply. Men who can't be trusted with arms should not be trusted with motor vehicles, hammers, or cans of soup. Either a man has paid his debt and his rights should be restored, or he should remain locked up. On another note, I don't believe we should lock people up as much as we do. All we're doing is sending them to criminal college. Instead, most offenses should be punishable by beating or hanging. We can't lock up criminals forever. Beating or hanging? When you're ready to provide some realistic proposals, get back to us We don't lock up people "too much". They are generally given a ton of alternatives to incerceration before they are ever sentenced to jail time. You're right. We can't lock criminals up forever. I believe, and recidivism rates illustrate, that confinement offers virtually no disincentive to crime. I believe that public corporal punishment would offer a much greater disincentive. Moreover, there are far too many "crimes." Prostitution, drug use, etc should not be even misdemeanor crimes. If you want to make them civil offenses, that's fine with me but one of the problems with our current system is many people get convicted of a minor offense - say possession of marijuana - then they get sentenced to probation. Being dirtbags, they can't manage to stop smoking pot for a couple months and they violate their probation. Now they're going to prison on what was originally a pretty minor offense. I'm not asking you to feel sorry for some retard that can't stay out of the back seat of a cop car for six months (my BIL is one of them), I'm just saying it doesn't do the rest of us any good to send them off to criminal college to learn how to make meth. Seriously, if you can't trust a man with a gun, how can you trust him to sit at a park bench next to a playground? |
|
Quoted:
one of the problems with our current system is many people get convicted of a minor offense - say possession of marijuana - then they get sentenced to probation. Being dirtbags, they can't manage to stop smoking pot for a couple months and they violate their probation. Now they're going to prison on what was originally a pretty minor offense. I'm not asking you to feel sorry for some retard that can't stay out of the back seat of a cop car for six months (my BIL is one of them), I'm just saying it doesn't do the rest of us any good to send them off to criminal college to learn how to make meth. Seriously, if you can't trust a man with a gun, how can you trust him to sit at a park bench next to a playground? People don't go to prison for smoking marijuana. They don't even get probation for it. It's a violation, an appearance ticket that results in a monetary fine. Your whole objection is based on a flawed assumption about the penalties involved with smoking pot. Plenty of people can't be trsuted with firearms in public but cause no one harm by sitting on a bench. Thats a flawed comparison. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
one of the problems with our current system is many people get convicted of a minor offense - say possession of marijuana - then they get sentenced to probation. Being dirtbags, they can't manage to stop smoking pot for a couple months and they violate their probation. Now they're going to prison on what was originally a pretty minor offense. I'm not asking you to feel sorry for some retard that can't stay out of the back seat of a cop car for six months (my BIL is one of them), I'm just saying it doesn't do the rest of us any good to send them off to criminal college to learn how to make meth. Seriously, if you can't trust a man with a gun, how can you trust him to sit at a park bench next to a playground? People don't go to prison for smoking marijuana. They don't even get probation for it. It's a violation, an appearance ticket that results in a monetary fine. Your whole objection is based on a flawed assumption about the penalties involved with smoking pot. Plenty of people can't be trsuted with firearms in public but cause no one harm by sitting on a bench. Thats a flawed comparison. In AZ they can get probation up to prison time for possession. If sentenced to probation, violation of probation often results in jail or prison time. Nevertheless, you are aware that many people end up in prison for a series of petty offenses, right? Another example would be someone picks up a "hooker," gets probation, violates by getting drunk before a piss test, or missing his bus and his appointment, or not having a job for too long, etc. You get the point. It is not a flawed comparison. Either a man has fulfilled his debt to society or he has not. |
|
Quoted:
The thought of unwashed masses carrying without government approval seems to scare the bejeezus out of people, even here. On the other hand, folks on Arfcom love freedom. Well, they like gun freedom, they aren't really all that fond of any other kind of freedom and would prefer the government stop people from doing anything they don't like (smoking pot, listening to rock music, chewing with their mouth open, etc.). This actually seems to cause a significant degree of consternation within the hive as members simply have no way to reconcile these two views. I have a proposal that may serve to simplify the matter for you: 1: the government has no business declaring who (adults) may or may not carry a weapon. Permits are a ridiculous infringement and should be done away with. 2: basic firearm safety and marksmanship is a desirable knowledge set and should be mandatory elements of the curriculum in all public and private schools, K-12. Further, advanced marksmanship is a desirable knowledge set and contributes to public safety so defensive rifle or pistol courses should be tax deductible. Problem solved, no? I just found this thread after starting my own thread very close to this subject.... 
|
|
Quoted:
In AZ they can get probation up to prison time for possession. If sentenced to probation, violation of probation often results in jail or prison time. Nevertheless, you are aware that many people end up in prison for a series of petty offenses, right? Another example would be someone picks up a "hooker," gets probation, violates by getting drunk before a piss test, or missing his bus and his appointment, or not having a job for too long, etc. You get the point. It is not a flawed comparison. Either a man has fulfilled his debt to society or he has not. Possession of how much? People don't go to prison for petty crimes around here. They have to really work at it to get any lock up time. If someone screws up probation or parole, why should we feel sorry for them? Not only could they not abide by the laws of society in the first place, they couldn't abide by the restrictions of their behaviors for the period of their probation/ parole. A person on parole or probation hasn't fulfilled their debt to society. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
In AZ they can get probation up to prison time for possession. If sentenced to probation, violation of probation often results in jail or prison time. Nevertheless, you are aware that many people end up in prison for a series of petty offenses, right? Another example would be someone picks up a "hooker," gets probation, violates by getting drunk before a piss test, or missing his bus and his appointment, or not having a job for too long, etc. You get the point. It is not a flawed comparison. Either a man has fulfilled his debt to society or he has not. Possession of how much? People don't go to prison for petty crimes around here. They have to really work at it to get any lock up time. If someone screws up probation or parole, why should we feel sorry for them? Not only could they not abide by the laws of society in the first place, they couldn't abide by the restrictions of their behaviors for the period of their probation/ parole. A person on parole or probation hasn't fulfilled their debt to society. Any amount is criminal. There is no amount that is only a civil offense. I don't know whether it is a felony or misdemeanor, though. I didn't say you should feel sorry for them. Obviously dirtbags. My point is that we're taking a generally harmless dirtbag and sending them off to Thunderdome to learn how to be a bigger, badder criminal. If we had just beat them a couple times in place of the probation they'd probably modify their behavior and if they didn't we could just keep beating them for the minor offenses. Remember, many violations of probation are acts that are legal if not on probation. No, a person on probation has not completed their debt. |
|
Quoted:
Any amount is criminal. There is no amount that is only a civil offense. I don't know whether it is a felony or misdemeanor, though. I didn't say you should feel sorry for them. Obviously dirtbags. My point is that we're taking a generally harmless dirtbag and sending them off to Thunderdome to learn how to be a bigger, badder criminal. If we had just beat them a couple times in place of the probation they'd probably modify their behavior and if they didn't we could just keep beating them for the minor offenses. Remember, many violations of probation are acts that are legal if not on probation. No, a person on probation has not completed their debt. As I said, here in NY its a violation. It is neither a misdemeanor nor a felony. No one is "going to Thunderdome" for UPM. No one is getting probation for UPM http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article221.htm |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any amount is criminal. There is no amount that is only a civil offense. I don't know whether it is a felony or misdemeanor, though. I didn't say you should feel sorry for them. Obviously dirtbags. My point is that we're taking a generally harmless dirtbag and sending them off to Thunderdome to learn how to be a bigger, badder criminal. If we had just beat them a couple times in place of the probation they'd probably modify their behavior and if they didn't we could just keep beating them for the minor offenses. Remember, many violations of probation are acts that are legal if not on probation. No, a person on probation has not completed their debt. As I said, here in NY its a violation. It is neither a misdemeanor nor a felony. No one is "going to Thunderdome" for UPM. No one is getting probation for UPM http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article221.htm Yes, and here it is a crime. That's is a complete red herring. The point is that people often get locked up for non violent, victimless crimes. Again, I'm not asking you to have any sympathy for them but just to recognize that it's not good policy to make a violent, hardened criminal out of a run of the mill dirtbag. People DO end up in jail or prison for having marijuana in this state. People do end up in jail or prison in most states for prostitution. People end up in federal PMITA for procedural errors involving an FFL or for owning a rifle that malfunctions. Got a shoelace? |
|
Quoted:
Yes, and here it is a crime. That's is a complete red herring. The point is that people often get locked up for non violent, victimless crimes. Again, I'm not asking you to have any sympathy for them but just to recognize that it's not good policy to make a violent, hardened criminal out of a run of the mill dirtbag. People DO end up in jail or prison for having marijuana in this state. People do end up in jail or prison in most states for prostitution. People end up in federal PMITA for procedural errors involving an FFL or for owning a rifle that malfunctions. Got a shoelace? I don't think you're recognizing just how many ATIs are functioning out there. People go to jail or prison after they've run through a whole cafeteria list of ATI programs. They've earned that trip by the time they make it around here. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, and here it is a crime. That's is a complete red herring. The point is that people often get locked up for non violent, victimless crimes. Again, I'm not asking you to have any sympathy for them but just to recognize that it's not good policy to make a violent, hardened criminal out of a run of the mill dirtbag. People DO end up in jail or prison for having marijuana in this state. People do end up in jail or prison in most states for prostitution. People end up in federal PMITA for procedural errors involving an FFL or for owning a rifle that malfunctions. Got a shoelace? I don't think you're recognizing just how many ATIs are functioning out there. People go to jail or prison after they've run through a whole cafeteria list of ATI programs. They've earned that trip by the time they make it around here. I don't think you're reading my posts. I'm not asking you to sympathize with some retard that can't manage to stay out of the back seat of a cop car for six months. I'm telling you that what we're doing is absolutely ineffective. You can't possibly believe that it's a good idea to make a simple loser into a serious criminal. This is all completely beside the point anyway. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said about CCW in the OP. |
|
Quoted:
I don't think you're reading my posts. I'm not asking you to sympathize with some retard that can't manage to stay out of the back seat of a cop car for six months. I'm telling you that what we're doing is absolutely ineffective. You can't possibly believe that it's a good idea to make a simple loser into a serious criminal. This is all completely beside the point anyway. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said about CCW in the OP. I am saying that you are over-stating the case. We are not turning losers into serious criminals when we aren't doing what you're claiming we are doing. Guys don't go to prison or even jail for simple pot possession. Guys don't even go to jail or prison on their first second or third arrests on pretty much any non-violent charge, until they've run out of all their ATI options. |
|
Except that they do. You are really having trouble with reading comprehension.
Even if you were correct and every state did things EXACTLY like NY (thank God we don't), it's still a couple of short steps. A: Billy Joe gets drunk and pisses off an overpass, gets sentenced to probation, pisses dirty, misses a couple appointments with his PO and fails to keep a job. PO goes to visit with him and Billy Joe isn't there. Eventually PO gets tired of Billy Joe's bullshit and violates him. B: Trevor needs money to buy meth cooking supplies and robs a couple liquor stores. They are clearly both exactly the same, and we should be sure that Billy Joe learns everything Trevor knows and toughens up a bit, too right? |
|
Quoted:
Except that they do. You are really having trouble with reading comprehension. Even if you were correct and every state did things EXACTLY like NY (thank God we don't), it's still a couple of short steps. A: Billy Joe gets drunk and pisses off an overpass, gets sentenced to probation, pisses dirty, misses a couple appointments with his PO and fails to keep a job. PO goes to visit with him and Billy Joe isn't there. Eventually PO gets tired of Billy Joe's bullshit and violates him. B: Trevor needs money to buy meth cooking supplies and robs a couple liquor stores. They are clearly both exactly the same, and we should be sure that Billy Joe learns everything Trevor knows and toughens up a bit, too right? I am comprehending just fine, and if you think that the guy pissing in public is going to get anything more than a monetary fine or MAYBE a couple of days locked up, you're dreaming. But keep insisting otherwise. if the guy is pissing hot and not keeping appointments with his PO , who does he have to blame for that but himself. Self-inflicted issues are not my concern. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Except that they do. You are really having trouble with reading comprehension. Even if you were correct and every state did things EXACTLY like NY (thank God we don't), it's still a couple of short steps. A: Billy Joe gets drunk and pisses off an overpass, gets sentenced to probation, pisses dirty, misses a couple appointments with his PO and fails to keep a job. PO goes to visit with him and Billy Joe isn't there. Eventually PO gets tired of Billy Joe's bullshit and violates him. B: Trevor needs money to buy meth cooking supplies and robs a couple liquor stores. They are clearly both exactly the same, and we should be sure that Billy Joe learns everything Trevor knows and toughens up a bit, too right? I am comprehending just fine, and if you think that the guy pissing in public is going to get anything more than a monetary fine or MAYBE a couple of days locked up, you're dreaming. But keep insisting otherwise. if the guy is pissing hot and not keeping appointments with his PO , who does he have to blame for that but himself. Self-inflicted issues are not my concern. This is why you're having trouble comprehending. I told you several times that I'm not asking you to feel sympathy for dirtbags. What you should care about is an ineffectual "justice" system that manufactures hardcore criminals. The current system CAUSES more serious crime. That should concern you. |
|
Quoted:
This is why you're having trouble comprehending. I told you several times that I'm not asking you to feel sympathy for dirtbags. What you should care about is an ineffectual "justice" system that manufactures hardcore criminals. The current system CAUSES more serious crime. That should concern you. No, it doesn't. You are wailing about poor little Johnny going off to prison for having a joint in his pocket. As I said, that doesn't happen, and even if it did, Johnny did it to himself. Some guys here like to loudly proclaim a belief in individual responsibility, but then when some kid is being held responsible for his behavior, all of a sudden its the criminal justice systems fault? Really now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is why you're having trouble comprehending. I told you several times that I'm not asking you to feel sympathy for dirtbags. What you should care about is an ineffectual "justice" system that manufactures hardcore criminals. The current system CAUSES more serious crime. That should concern you. No, it doesn't. You are wailing about poor little Johnny going off to prison for having a joint in his pocket. As I said, that doesn't happen, and even if it did, Johnny did it to himself. Some guys here like to loudly proclaim a belief in individual responsibility, but then when some kid is being held responsible for his behavior, all of a sudden its the criminal justice systems fault? Really now. That's why I said you either aren't reading or have trouble with English. I said exactly the opposite. I don't care about Johnny. People who break laws - even ones I disagree with - need to be punished. Confinement is terribly ineffective as evidenced by the recidivism rate. Further, it's absolutely insane to confine petty crooks with rough crooks. I think beating or hanging would be far more effective in nearly every case. If Johnny got beat for having a joint or stealing a Snickers bar, he would be unlikely to further offend. |
|
Quoted:
That's why I said you either aren't reading or have trouble with English. I said exactly the opposite. I don't care about Johnny. People who break laws - even ones I disagree with - need to be punished. Confinement is terribly ineffective as evidenced by the recidivism rate. Further, it's absolutely insane to confine petty crooks with rough crooks. I think beating or hanging would be far more effective in nearly every case. If Johnny got beat for having a joint or stealing a Snickers bar, he would be unlikely to further offend. I see. You want us to mimic the Taliban. No thanks. Petty crooks aren't being confined with hardened criminals. I don't know why you can't seem to hear me when I say that. Over the years I have seen people charged with felonies or FELONY BENCH WARRANTS ( meaning they failed to show up for a court date, so the judge had to issue a warrant ) get ROR'd at court upon arraignment, yet you keep coming back trying to tell us that petty criminals are being locked up with hardened crooks. Get it through your head. It isn't happening. Nor do I endorse the idea that we should beat petty criminals. Thats downright barbaric. Plenty of people deserve harsh punishment, but beatings for minor offenses and killing the rest? You're overboard in yoru suggestion. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
OP bored the shit out of me with his smug attitude about halfway through the second sentence. That's as far as I got. Smug? Or too close to your actual attitude about "freedom?" I couldn't give a damn less what you think or do, as long as it doesn't pick my pocket or poke my eye, or pick/poke the pocket/eye of others. Regardless, like a few others here, you seem to have appointed yourself as a finger-wagging scold for the forum. Smug is smug. Even if you were right in all respects, you don't win others over to your point of view by being a self-satisfied, supercilious prick about it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OP bored the shit out of me with his smug attitude about halfway through the second sentence. That's as far as I got. Smug? Or too close to your actual attitude about "freedom?" I couldn't give a damn less what you think or do, as long as it doesn't pick my pocket or poke my eye, or pick/poke the pocket/eye of others. Regardless, like a few others here, you seem to have appointed yourself as a finger-wagging scold for the forum. Smug is smug. Even if you were right in all respects, you don't win others over to your point of view by being a self-satisfied, supercilious prick about it. 
I'll try not to talk like a fag. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OP bored the shit out of me with his smug attitude about halfway through the second sentence. That's as far as I got. Smug? Or too close to your actual attitude about "freedom?" I couldn't give a damn less what you think or do, as long as it doesn't pick my pocket or poke my eye, or pick/poke the pocket/eye of others. Regardless, like a few others here, you seem to have appointed yourself as a finger-wagging scold for the forum. Smug is smug. Even if you were right in all respects, you don't win others over to your point of view by being a self-satisfied, supercilious prick about it.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRQijskAMp4
I'll try not to talk like a fag. If you're a lisping, mincing queen, that's your business, and falls into the "doesn't pick my pocket or poke my eye" category. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: OP bored the shit out of me with his smug attitude about halfway through the second sentence. That's as far as I got. Smug? Or too close to your actual attitude about "freedom?" I couldn't give a damn less what you think or do, as long as it doesn't pick my pocket or poke my eye, or pick/poke the pocket/eye of others. Regardless, like a few others here, you seem to have appointed yourself as a finger-wagging scold for the forum. Smug is smug. Even if you were right in all respects, you don't win others over to your point of view by being a self-satisfied, supercilious prick about it. Which of course is MY job! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
one of the problems with our current system is many people get convicted of a minor offense - say possession of marijuana - then they get sentenced to probation. Being dirtbags, they can't manage to stop smoking pot for a couple months and they violate their probation. Now they're going to prison on what was originally a pretty minor offense. I'm not asking you to feel sorry for some retard that can't stay out of the back seat of a cop car for six months (my BIL is one of them), I'm just saying it doesn't do the rest of us any good to send them off to criminal college to learn how to make meth. Seriously, if you can't trust a man with a gun, how can you trust him to sit at a park bench next to a playground? People don't go to prison for smoking marijuana. They don't even get probation for it. It's a violation, an appearance ticket that results in a monetary fine. Your whole objection is based on a flawed assumption about the penalties involved with smoking pot. Plenty of people can't be trsuted with firearms in public but cause no one harm by sitting on a bench. Thats a flawed comparison. Depends on the state. I've seen people get time here for possession of marijuana. It's usually anywhere between 10-14 days, so it isn't much, but they do get jail time. Your prior post, however, where you point out that people are given tons of chances before incarceration is, sadly, spot-on. Some idiots just never learn... 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's why I said you either aren't reading or have trouble with English. I said exactly the opposite. I don't care about Johnny. People who break laws - even ones I disagree with - need to be punished. Confinement is terribly ineffective as evidenced by the recidivism rate. Further, it's absolutely insane to confine petty crooks with rough crooks. I think beating or hanging would be far more effective in nearly every case. If Johnny got beat for having a joint or stealing a Snickers bar, he would be unlikely to further offend. I see. You want us to mimic the Taliban. No thanks. Petty crooks aren't being confined with hardened criminals. I don't know why you can't seem to hear me when I say that. Over the years I have seen people charged with felonies or FELONY BENCH WARRANTS ( meaning they failed to show up for a court date, so the judge had to issue a warrant ) get ROR'd at court upon arraignment, yet you keep coming back trying to tell us that petty criminals are being locked up with hardened crooks. Get it through your head. It isn't happening. Nor do I endorse the idea that we should beat petty criminals. Thats downright barbaric. Plenty of people deserve harsh punishment, but beatings for minor offenses and killing the rest? You're overboard in yoru suggestion. Uh, that does happen. Maybe not where you are, but it happens in many other places. This being one of them. |
|
Quoted: 1: Maybe I'm reading too deeply into your proposal but I don't want government removing laws that prohibit gun ownership by felons. 2: I could get behind it as an elective, but not as curriculum. Prohibition is pointless. Please identify any laws that actually prevent violent felons from possessing firearms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
1: Maybe I'm reading too deeply into your proposal but I don't want government removing laws that prohibit gun ownership by felons. 2: I could get behind it as an elective, but not as curriculum. Prohibition is pointless. Please identify any laws that actually prevent violent felons from possessing firearms. I'm not sure, but I think the laws and policies prohibiting firearms within correctional institutions are generally effective at prohibiting inmates from carrying guns, though there are still some exceptions. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1: Maybe I'm reading too deeply into your proposal but I don't want government removing laws that prohibit gun ownership by felons. 2: I could get behind it as an elective, but not as curriculum. Prohibition is pointless. Please identify any laws that actually prevent violent felons from possessing firearms. I'm not sure, but I think the laws and policies prohibiting firearms within correctional institutions are generally effective at prohibiting inmates from carrying guns, though there are still some exceptions. Controlled environment. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 1: Maybe I'm reading too deeply into your proposal but I don't want government removing laws that prohibit gun ownership by felons. 2: I could get behind it as an elective, but not as curriculum. Prohibition is pointless. Please identify any laws that actually prevent violent felons from possessing firearms. I'm not sure, but I think the laws and policies prohibiting firearms within correctional institutions are generally effective at prohibiting inmates from carrying guns, though there are still some exceptions. And the minute they get out? |
|
Quoted:
Uh, that does happen. Maybe not where you are, but it happens in many other places. This being one of them. I am still not losing any sleep over some crook having to spend time in jail. Quoted:
And the minute they get out? So because crooks break the law in question,we should do away with it? Maybe we can do away with laws against murder next. After all, the crooks aren't following it |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1: Maybe I'm reading too deeply into your proposal but I don't want government removing laws that prohibit gun ownership by felons. 2: I could get behind it as an elective, but not as curriculum. Prohibition is pointless. Please identify any laws that actually prevent violent felons from possessing firearms. I'm not sure, but I think the laws and policies prohibiting firearms within correctional institutions are generally effective at prohibiting inmates from carrying guns, though there are still some exceptions. And the minute they get out? Exactly. I was just being a smartass. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, that does happen. Maybe not where you are, but it happens in many other places. This being one of them. I am still not losing any sleep over some crook having to spend time in jail. For the 87th time: Nobody is asking you to feel sorry for a crook. We're asking you to A: stop lying and B: understand that locking ANYONE up is usually ineffectual and full retard to do it to non violent petty crooks. ETA: I'm getting trolled hard. I need to stop trying to reason with this guy. |