In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
2nd Amend and criminals
COBmmcmss
Member Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭✭✭
keep violent offenders locked up.
keep crazies locked up.
kill the murderers and child molesters.
if we need a small island to keep them on permanently, so be it.
Is it really time for Snake Pliskin and Escape from New York or L.A.? Have we come that far (or fallen that low)?
allow citizens to properly protect/defend themselves without fear of prosecution.
Like we did prior to 1930?
hold parents fully accountable for their kid's actions, and allow them to discipline their children without fear of prosecution..
Now there's a novel concept - holding a parent responsible instead of locking them up when they spank their own.
it wouldn't hurt to also repeal our drug laws (what was the best way to deal with the prohibition era gangsters? repeal prohibition and let free citizens be responsible for themselves).
Repealing drug laws would not solve the crime. If we're going to do it like we did for prohibition, then we have to tax, legislate and regulate the drugs like they do alcohol.
Since we cannot afford to keep the crazies and the "terminally stupid e.g. career criminal" in lock up, should we just euthanize them to save money and protect the public?
Should we consider a person who carries out a crime to be automatically void of their 2nd Amendment rights until proven innocent instead of until proven guilty?
How far do we go eliminating the rights of the individuals in favor of the rights of the public to be idyllic sheeplike zombies?
Care to weigh in?
P.S. My apologies to Kurt Russell for calling on his role as Pliskin. [;)]
keep crazies locked up.
kill the murderers and child molesters.
if we need a small island to keep them on permanently, so be it.
Is it really time for Snake Pliskin and Escape from New York or L.A.? Have we come that far (or fallen that low)?
allow citizens to properly protect/defend themselves without fear of prosecution.
Like we did prior to 1930?
hold parents fully accountable for their kid's actions, and allow them to discipline their children without fear of prosecution..
Now there's a novel concept - holding a parent responsible instead of locking them up when they spank their own.
it wouldn't hurt to also repeal our drug laws (what was the best way to deal with the prohibition era gangsters? repeal prohibition and let free citizens be responsible for themselves).
Repealing drug laws would not solve the crime. If we're going to do it like we did for prohibition, then we have to tax, legislate and regulate the drugs like they do alcohol.
Since we cannot afford to keep the crazies and the "terminally stupid e.g. career criminal" in lock up, should we just euthanize them to save money and protect the public?
Should we consider a person who carries out a crime to be automatically void of their 2nd Amendment rights until proven innocent instead of until proven guilty?
How far do we go eliminating the rights of the individuals in favor of the rights of the public to be idyllic sheeplike zombies?
Care to weigh in?
P.S. My apologies to Kurt Russell for calling on his role as Pliskin. [;)]
Comments
keep violent offenders locked up.
keep crazies locked up.
kill the murderers and child molesters.
if we need a small island to keep them on permanently, so be it.
Is it really time for Snake Pliskin and Escape from New York or L.A.? Have we come that far (or fallen that low)?
altho i was using a dramatic example, as far as if we've fallen that low....unfortunately, we may have.
my first choice is to execute murderers and molesters.
no reason to keep feeding a parasite.
the island comments was in reference to the fact that a large portion of society is vehemently against the death penalty.
i would prefer the condemned to fend for themselves on a remote chunk of sand, than drain my country's wallet and give a reason to tax.
allow citizens to properly protect/defend themselves without fear of prosecution.
Like we did prior to 1930?
i want myself, and every other free man in this country to be able to carry the tools we need to defend our families and ourselves from whomever may wish to do us harm, without fear of prosecution, because someone thought it was a good idea to require a "permit" to "lawfully" exercise a god given right.
i actually very much resent the fact that another human thought it was acceptable to license my rights, and i resent the idiots that keep voting those meanies back into office (but that's an entirely different rant....).
as for prosecution for any action involving the use of a firearm in a self defense situation, it is a case by case basis.
if it's a clean shoot, let it be.
we do have the right to defend ourselves.
not granted by a piece of paper, but given at birth by our creator.
our laws do not reflect that little kernel of truth.
hold parents fully accountable for their kid's actions, and allow them to discipline their children without fear of prosecution..
Now there's a novel concept - holding a parent responsible instead of locking them up when they spank their own.
it's the first line of defense as far as idiot prevention goes.
kids need to learn to first fear, then respect their parents (respect is a more acquired trait, but fear is as basic as it gets).
a faulty upbringing is a huge factor in the breeding of these vermin.
it wouldn't hurt to also repeal our drug laws (what was the best way to deal with the prohibition era gangsters? repeal prohibition and let free citizens be responsible for themselves).
Repealing drug laws would not solve the crime. If we're going to do it like we did for prohibition, then we have to tax, legislate and regulate the drugs like they do alcohol.
perfect.
let's do it.
aside from the fact that it's just not anybody's business what i, or any other free person does with their time, money, brain cells, etc., the only reason that people are willing to kill over drugs is because they get so much power and money out of it.
if you remove the profit from drugs, then what do they do?
where will the money come from to feed their habit AND allow them to get thoe 5ft rims for their '64 impala?
hell, they'll be reduced to driving a pinto if they can't sling rock.
(no offence to any pinto drivers)
what will rappers sing about?
why would a kid want to grow up to be a low-pants wearin, sideways-hat havin' idiot who's broke?
all of that aside, there's the fact that we have an entire class of criminal that is soaking up resources. sometimes the reason that violent offenders get out early, is because they need to make room for drug offenders that have been given mandatory sentences.
drugs are a health problem, just like alcoholism and cigarette smoking.
let's treat it as such.
Since we cannot afford to keep the crazies and the "terminally stupid e.g. career criminal" in lock up, should we just euthanize them to save money and protect the public?
depends on the crime.
if a crazy can show that they're rehabbed enough to re-enter the community, great.
same with any non violent criminal.
violent criminals get 1 chance at parole (depending on the crime), and after that they go away.
if a person is not fit enough, mentally or morally, to exist in a society as free as the one that our forefathers had intended without it interfering with my individual rights, then they need to be removed from that society.
crimes i feel are deserving of the death penalty include, but are not limited to:
murder (not to be confused with killing)
child molestation
rape (in certain circumstances)
any violent crime against the elderly.
so, no....
not an automatic death penalty, but if it fits the crime, so be it.
Should we consider a person who carries out a crime to be automatically void of their 2nd Amendment rights until proven innocent instead of until proven guilty?
nope.
however, if they are in custody, yes.
if they have a chuckie manson in custody, and there's blood all over the walls, there's a pretty good chance he would not be released on o.r.
if one has been released from custody, then yes, full god given rights can be enjoyed.
innocent until proven guilty is the way it's supposed to be.
How far do we go eliminating the rights of the individuals in favor of the rights of the public to be idyllic sheeplike zombies?
not. one. inch.
the rights of an individual are all that truly matter.
my individual right to go about my life in as stand-up a manner as possible, and another's right to screw up badly enough to be removed from the society that allows us to make our own choices.
we are all endowed by our creator with the freedom to achieve excellence, failure, and all in between.
it is our responsibility to make the right decision.
it is the government's responsibility to make sure that we have the freedom to make that decision.
Care to weigh in?
P.S. My apologies to Kurt Russell for calling on his role as Pliskin. [;)]
how's that?
....and i'm sure kurt wouldn't mind the reference.....it was rather appropriate.