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
Some Of You
nunn
Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 36,013 ******
Some of you, clearly, have never actually met or known a person with a criminal mentality. They just don't process information the same way you and I do. They don't have, and will never have, the same value system that you and I do.
Some of you apparently believe that the criminal is just like you, only he got caught doing something illegal, and after he has "paid his debt to society," he will gladly become a productive member of society. Crap. He wasn't one before, and he won't be one after.
Some of you apparently believe that the criminal is just like you, only he got caught doing something illegal, and after he has "paid his debt to society," he will gladly become a productive member of society. Crap. He wasn't one before, and he won't be one after.
Comments
Some of you, clearly, have never actually met or known a person with a criminal mentality. They just don't process information the same way you and I do. They don't have, and will never have, the same value system that you and I do.
So I guess the joining the "Adopt-a-Rapist" program at my local community center wasn't such a good idea after all.
Those who are not safe to be out in society should not be, those who are should be granted the same rights as you and I, after paying the debt.
Our criminal justice system does not work very well and should be changed. IMO opinion most criminals do not pay a high enough price for their crimes, and too many acts of consent are criminalized. I do not have any issue with hard labor being levied upon criminals. They do not treat their victims as humans. Why should they be treated as human?
that person should NOT be allowed in society.
I guess that pesky old Constitution is merely an impediment and can be routinely ignored with direct violations of a fundamental right, rather than what amounts to a legislative issue that does not rise to the level of a fundamental constitutionally enumerated right.
Crazy ol' el-tee.
Some of you, clearly, have never actually met or known a person with a criminal mentality. They just don't process information the same way you and I do. They don't have, and will never have, the same value system that you and I do.
Some of you apparently believe that the criminal is just like you, only he got caught doing something illegal, and after he has "paid his debt to society," he will gladly become a productive member of society. Crap. He wasn't one before, and he won't be one after.
Uh.....Ok.
It would seem to me that focusing on and fixing the issue of convicted criminals and sentencing would be preferred/accepted, rather than blatantly infringing upon a fundamental constitutionally enumerated right, with the willing acquiescence of most of the populous.
I guess that pesky old Constitution is merely an impediment and can be routinely ignored with direct violations of a fundamental right, rather than what amounts to a legislative issue that does not rise to the level of a fundamental constitutionally enumerated right.
Crazy ol' el-tee.
Crazy indeed, Jeff.
How would this work, one wonders:
A. Deliberately seed a population with those who have a Criminal Mentality'.
B. Citing A above, those with an Enforcement Mentality establish programs of monitorring and regulating the rights of all citizens.
C. When facing a Constitutional challange, support you Enforcement Mentality position by stating that such monitorring and regulation is necessary because we know that those with a Criminal Mentality are known to be in our midst and thus reasonable suspicion or probable cause, as it were, exists.
D. Continually expand the intrusion of the Enforcement Mentality with increasingly restrictive methods of regulation whilst knowing full well those with a Criminal Mentality will find means outside existing regulated venues.
E. The Enforcement Mentality will insist, therefore, that ways must be found to regulate all venues, again ignoring the obvious fact that total regulation will only truly apply to those without a Criminal Mentality.
We then reach a point where it is only those with a Criminal Mentality and those with an Enforcement Mentality that are armed. At that point, there is no real difference between these two superficially different mentalities.
Brad Steele
dont that make the people responsible for such a system monsters? I mean they know that many of these people they release will kill, rape, &rob again and again, yet they do so to gain control over all.
Isnt that right up there with Nazi/communist kinda evil? treason even?
that person should NOT be allowed in society.
Mr. pickenup, that is a fine notion, but it ain't the world you and I live in.
Phase one is the plea bargaining system which down plays most every crime on the books in order to "take the pressure" off of the court system.
The second phase is the jury selection process ... would be nice to have a group of juror's already enlisted that have been selected on their ability to judge a case on facts and not solely on emotion.
The third phase is the probation system. What is entirely wrong about letting a person serve his time and be done with it? But, make the sentence as severe as the crime. [?]
Of course, it wouldn't work on the federal level because too many legislative people would be in prison.
[:p][:p][:p][:p]
quote:If a person is NOT safe to be in society,
that person should NOT be allowed in society.
Mr. pickenup, that is a fine notion, but it ain't the world you and I live in.
And why is that Mr. Nunn? Is it because this is what we are willing to accept?
Which is it we really want? To punish criminals or to punish everyone?
If it is about punishing criminals, then let's leave citizens alone then.
You remember what that old, dead, racist Ben Franklin said, right?
Those that would trade liberty for a bit of "security" deserve NEITHER.
But what would I know. I think more like those old, dead, racists rather than the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.
quote:If a person is NOT safe to be in society,
that person should NOT be allowed in society.
Mr. pickenup, that is a fine notion, but it ain't the world you and I live in.
Nunn,
This is one of the points I have been making for years, but the 'SHOULD BE' bunch (also known as CA's)[;)] refuse to except the reality of this!!!
Don't get me wrong here, I agree 100% that their way is the way it SHOULD BE, but as I and others have pointed out it WILL NOT BE!!!!
Human nature has not allowed this to ever occur, and human nature NEVER WILL allow this to occur!!![:(]
If a person is NOT safe to be in society,
that person should NOT be allowed in society.
Say someone commits armed robbery against an innocent citizen and goes to prison for a couple of years. At the end of his/her sentence, how the hell are you, or anybody, going to be absolutely positively sure whether or not to let them out of prison? How do you go about being able to guarantee that felon, who has served their time, will or will not be "safe to be in society?"
Once again you and those like you childishly believe is absolutes. Absolutes rarely, if ever exist in the adult world. Absolutes exist only in the mind of children.
Now notice that I asked one or two very specific questions. So, I hope that, along with your insults, you will at least attempt to answer my honest questions. Oh, and please leave out the very large type and the various colors in your reply. Otherwise your reply looks like it was composed by a child.
Say someone commits armed robbery against an innocent citizen and goes to prison for a couple of years. At the end of his/her sentence, how the hell are you, or anybody, going to be absolutely positively sure whether or not to let them out of prison? How do you go about being able to guarantee that felon, who has served their time, will or will not be "safe to be in society?"
What you're asking for cannot exist.
Can anyone guarantee an ex-felon will be "safe to society" upon release? Of course not.
Can you guarantee ANYONE will be "safe to society" for their lifetime?
If you think the right to arms isn't really a "right", all you have to do is say so.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
If a person is NOT safe to be in society,
that person should NOT be allowed in society.
Say someone commits armed robbery against an innocent citizen and goes to prison for a couple of years. At the end of his/her sentence, how the hell are you, or anybody, going to be absolutely positively sure whether or not to let them out of prison?
There are no guarantees in life and there is a price to pay for living in a free society.
You merely mouth what happens to be collectivist ideology, in that you look to generally prohibit an object to a category of people, rather than advocating from the individualist ideology which would say that a specific individual should be specifically punished for the specific commission of an individual 'bad act'.
How do you go about being able to guarantee that felon, who has served their time, will or will not be "safe to be in society?"
Same answer as given above.
It is about individual and specific punishment for the commission of specific and individual 'bad acts'.
How do you guarantee now that anyone released from prison is safe to be in society?
Answer: You don't.
Yet you and those with your collectivist ideology continue to advocate restriction/controls of the RKBA in direct opposition to Amendment II, rather than focusing on what individuals do.
How's that working out for ya?
How's that reconcile with Amendment II?
How's that reconcile with the principles of our founding?
Once again you and those like you childishly believe is absolutes.
Belief in and advocacy for what the Constitution states is hardly 'childish', at least in my world.
Absolutes rarely, if ever exist in the adult world. Absolutes exist only in the mind of children.
Factually, the BOR's lay out a number of absolutes.
The BOR's also reference specific guideline for those specific circumstances where government is authorized to act related to individual liberties.
You arguments, analogies and your positions ring hollow, fox.
Now notice that I asked one or two very specific questions. So, I hope that, along with your insults, you will at least attempt to answer my honest questions.
Answered.
Oh, and please leave out the very large type and the various colors in your reply. Otherwise your reply looks like it was composed by a child.
I guess that i'll make my reply in what I assess to be an easy method to read and understand, your protestations notwithstanding, of course.
The troll is back.
Must be the weekend.
Seems lately that there are two types of people: the criminals and law enforcers.
Pretty much it as far as I can tell.
Some of you, clearly, have never actually met or known a person with a criminal mentality. They just don't process information the same way you and I do. They don't have, and will never have, the same value system that you and I do.
Some of you apparently believe that the criminal is just like you, only he got caught doing something illegal, and after he has "paid his debt to society," he will gladly become a productive member of society. Crap. He wasn't one before, and he won't be one after.
Not everybody who has been busted in this land of the "free", has the mentality you speak of. I guaran-damn-tee that nunn himself has broken laws, and not just one's he didn't know existed! Does that mean you have criminal mentality? Of course not! Just lucky? Probably.
Every single breathing person in this country has broken some damn law![:(!]
Seems lately that there are two types of people: the criminals and law enforcers.
Not true. The VAST majority of the people are good people. They may make a mistake or lose control on occasion, but they are not the problem. The FEW criminals/victimizers (those who have a life of crime) make it very hard on the rest of us. They are the ones who we have to manage by making it hard for them to live this life of crime. They are not always stupid and they can be very hard to identify, locate, apprehend, and prosecute at times. It is these few whom we have to try and limit their ability to victimize others, thus some restrictions and laws. We need to make sure we do not over react and place unnecessary restrictions on the good people. We have failed miserably in this area in the past and we need to eliminate the vast majority of the unconstitutional laws passed which limit the rights and freedoms of the GOOD people. The restrictions on good people only make for a target rich environment for the bad people.[V]
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
Seems lately that there are two types of people: the criminals and law enforcers.
Not true. The VAST majority of the people are good people. They may make a mistake or lose control on occasion, but they are not the problem. The FEW criminals/victimizers (those who have a life of crime) make it very hard on the rest of us. They are the ones who we have to manage by making it hard for them to live this life of crime. They are not always stupid and they can be very hard to identify, locate, apprehend, and prosecute at times. It is these few whom we have to try and limit their ability to victimize others, thus some restrictions and laws. We need to make sure we do not over react and place unnecessary restrictions on the good people. We have failed miserably in this area in the past and we need to eliminate the vast majority of the unconstitutional laws passed which limit the rights and freedoms of the GOOD people. The restrictions on good people only make for a target rich environment for the bad people.[V]
Good grief......
You just don't get it Jim.
Hang the bad people.
Leave the good people ALONE.
With your own words Jim, YOU show what side you are on. It ISN'T the side of the citizens. Rock was right in his statement.
Nuuuunnnnn? Where are you?
Not true. The VAST majority of the people are good people. They may make a mistake or lose control on occasion, but they are not the problem. The FEW criminals/victimizers (those who have a life of crime) make it very hard on the rest of us. They are the ones who we have to manage by making it hard for them to live this life of crime. They are not always stupid and they can be very hard to identify, locate, apprehend, and prosecute at times. It is these few whom we have to try and limit their ability to victimize others, thus some restrictions and laws. We need to make sure we do not over react and place unnecessary restrictions on the good people. We have failed miserably in this area in the past and we need to eliminate the vast majority of the unconstitutional laws passed which limit the rights and freedoms of the GOOD people. The restrictions on good people only make for a target rich environment for the bad people.[V]
OK, Jim, we get rid of the Vast Majority of the unconstitutional laws. How many of these unconstitutional should we keep? How many is too many?
As said before, if you want to keep some unconstitutional laws at least be honest enough to advocate for the change in the Constitution you desire that will make these laws Constitutional.
Brad Steele
You have accepted, further, the structured tyranny of government steadily infringing upon your own and everybody else's 'Rights' instead of demanding punishment for the guilty.
Will there ever be a 'line in the sand' beyond which even YOU will not go ? Any level of government intrusion, government heavy handedness ?
Imagine for a moment that you and a few million more suddenly decided to demand that the government punish the guilty...instead of the decent innocent citizen out there ?
Don't you think that would alleviate your concern about the 'criminal mentality' that thrives among a disarmed, demoralized citizen population, and which is aided and abetted by a government that also grows bigger by those savages' actions ?
Then the plus side of that thought ? You would be advocating CONSTITUTITONAL actions of the government...instead of UNCONSTUTIONAL programs ? What a thought....
Don't you think that you, yourself, aid the criminal element...by insisting that government laws that restrict Constitutional Rights are the answer ?
Some of you, clearly, have accepted the current dogma of non-punishment of vicious animals that plague society.
You have accepted, further, the structured tyranny of government steadily infringing upon your own and everybody else's 'Rights' instead of demanding punishment for the guilty.
Will there ever be a 'line in the sand' beyond which even YOU will not go ? Any level of government intrusion, government heavy handedness ?
Imagine for a moment that you and a few million more suddenly decided to demand that the government punish the guilty...instead of the decent innocent citizen out there ?
Don't you think that would alleviate your concern about the 'criminal mentality' that thrives among a disarmed, demoralized citizen population, and which is aided and abetted by a government that also grows bigger by those savages' actions ?
Then the plus side of that thought ? You would be advocating CONSTITUTITONAL actions of the government...instead of UNCONSTUTIONAL programs ? What a thought....
Don't you think that you, yourself, aid the criminal element...by insisting that government laws that restrict Constitutional Rights are the answer ?
HB,
If you missed it, I said I agree with you 100% as to way it SHOULD BE! But the problem is the 'Should be' bunch (CA's for short) are in complete denial of the role human nature plays on what WILL BE!!!
There are very few 'absolutes' when dealing with people. And we are talking 300 million+ in this country. When you can get 300 million to agree on the 'absolutes' you wish to see let me know!!![;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
Seems lately that there are two types of people: the criminals and law enforcers.
Not true. The VAST majority of the people are good people. They may make a mistake or lose control on occasion, but they are not the problem. The FEW criminals/victimizers (those who have a life of crime) make it very hard on the rest of us. They are the ones who we have to manage by making it hard for them to live this life of crime. They are not always stupid and they can be very hard to identify, locate, apprehend, and prosecute at times. It is these few whom we have to try and limit their ability to victimize others, thus some restrictions and laws. We need to make sure we do not over react and place unnecessary restrictions on the good people. We have failed miserably in this area in the past and we need to eliminate the vast majority of the unconstitutional laws passed which limit the rights and freedoms of the GOOD people. The restrictions on good people only make for a target rich environment for the bad people.[V]
Good grief......
You just don't get it Jim.
Hang the bad people.
Leave the good people ALONE.
With your own words Jim, YOU show what side you are on. It ISN'T the side of the citizens. Rock was right in his statement.
My above reply to HB applies to you as well. [;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Not true. The VAST majority of the people are good people. They may make a mistake or lose control on occasion, but they are not the problem. The FEW criminals/victimizers (those who have a life of crime) make it very hard on the rest of us. They are the ones who we have to manage by making it hard for them to live this life of crime. They are not always stupid and they can be very hard to identify, locate, apprehend, and prosecute at times. It is these few whom we have to try and limit their ability to victimize others, thus some restrictions and laws. We need to make sure we do not over react and place unnecessary restrictions on the good people. We have failed miserably in this area in the past and we need to eliminate the vast majority of the unconstitutional laws passed which limit the rights and freedoms of the GOOD people. The restrictions on good people only make for a target rich environment for the bad people.[V]
OK, Jim, we get rid of the Vast Majority of the unconstitutional laws. How many of these unconstitutional should we keep? How many is too many?
As said before, if you want to keep some unconstitutional laws at least be honest enough to advocate for the change in the Constitution you desire that will make these laws Constitutional.
Don,
There in lies the problem!! Try and get some agreement on what 'laws' will not needlessly restrict our rights and freedoms but still help to control the 'bad' guys.
To me this is a complicated but achievable task. The problem is what I propose will not make either of the extreme sides of this issue happy!!!!
Our legal system is tailored to see that the 'bad' guys are treated fairly, not to protect the rest of us. This is because attorneys can't make a living telling their clients (bad guys) to be responsible and admit their guilt!! If they did this they would not make as much money!!! And judges are just glorified attorneys in a black robe who assist in the miscarriage of justice by, in many cases, refusing to except a guilty plea from the accused unless they consult with one of their friends (attorney) who is in business to make money and will not allow them to plead guilty!!! Not to mention the 'technicalities' they us to free them. So the proposal which many here put forth, remove the bad guys from our society will NOT happen. They turn them loose about as fast as we arrest them. Many go right back to 'making the money' to pay their attorney by victimizing us while out on bail!!!! [V]
Any laws we enact MUST take the above into account. Thus the totally 'unrestricted' environment many here unrealistically propose and support will not work!!!
Don,
There in lies the problem!! Try and get some agreement on what 'laws' will not needlessly restrict our rights and freedoms but still help to control the 'bad' guys.
To me this is a complicated but achievable task. The problem is what I propose will not make either of the extreme sides of this issue happy!!!!
Our legal system is tailored to see that the 'bad' guys are treated fairly, not to protect the rest of us. This is because attorneys can't make a living telling their clients (bad guys) to be responsible and admit their guilt!! If they did this they would not make as much money!!! And judges are just glorified attorneys in a black robe who assist in the miscarriage of justice by, in many cases, refusing to except a guilty plea from the accused unless they consult with one of their friends (attorney) who is in business to make money and will not allow them to plead guilty!!! Not to mention the 'technicalities' they us to free them. So the proposal which many here put forth, remove the bad guys from our society will NOT happen. They turn them loose about as fast as we arrest them. Many go right back to 'making the money' to pay their attorney by victimizing us while out on bail!!!! [V]
Any laws we enact MUST take the above into account. Thus the totally 'unrestricted' environment many here unrealistically propose and support will not work!!!
So you are suggesting that we must enact laws that are contrary to the Constitution and infringe upon the rights of the citizenry because of the corrupt nature of our judicial system?
Thus we, the citizenry, are supposed to be content with this arrangement because it is what it is. How on earth could an unrestricted environment work any less well than the system you just described?
All of our laws must respect the Constitution or that document becomes worthless. Please state how you wish to change the 2nd Amendment to fit into your reality. If you wish to make these laws and not change the 2nd, you are advocating lawlessness by government, which obviously has a much greater potential to do harm than lawlessness by individuals.
Brad Steele
You don't seem to understand our founding Fathers were sensible people who knew we would have to 'restrict' some rights to maintain freedom. They were not the 'idealists' you all seem to try to portray them as! The fact that they were able to come to an agreement, which was not easy, on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence shows this. They were 'realists', plan and simple. The problem we have today is we have become way to 'ideal' on both sides of most issues which causes more divisiveness then ever before.
To answer your question, yes, we MUST, as I stated above, pass laws which will insure the freedom and rights of 'good guys' while placing some restrictions on the 'bad guys'!!! Most laws today do not do this. They restrict OUR rights and freedoms because we are, for the most part, law abiding people. If you are not a threat (bad guy) you should not be targeted by ANY law.
Those who demonstrated, through their deeds, that they are not trustworthy should not be trusted!!!
Don,
You don't seem to understand our founding Fathers were sensible people who knew we would have to 'restrict' some rights to maintain freedom. They were not the 'idealists' you all seem to try to portray them as! The fact that they were able to come to an agreement, which was not easy, on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence shows this. They were 'realists', plan and simple. The problem we have today is we have become way to 'ideal' on both sides of most issues which causes more divisiveness then ever before.
To answer your question, yes, we MUST, as I stated above, pass laws which will insure the freedom and rights of 'good guys' while placing some restrictions on the 'bad guys'!!! Most laws today do not do this. They restrict OUR rights and freedoms because we are, for the most part, law abiding people. If you are not a threat (bad guy) you should not be targeted by ANY law.
Those who demonstrated, through their deeds, that they are not trustworthy should not be trusted!!!
And there it is, Jim - interpreting the Constitution based upon your current belief system.
I couldn't care less how 'reasonable' the founders were. The States ratified written words in the Constitution, not the ramblings of realists. Those written words state that this specific right shall not be infringed. There are no exceptions. You advocate for exceptions. Placing restrictions requires that one either re-defines the 2nd by interpretation or that one ignores it.
It is this very manipulation of the Constitution that is sinking our country. That is what is real, Jim, and it will be much more real to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren if people like you continue to support anti-Constitutional Government power.
Once again: How would you prefer the 2nd Amendment to read? Better yet, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what our Founding Realists actually meant to say.
Brad Steele
it is a one sided trap..a politically correct gestapo...delivering the accused,to the system of politically elected judges and prosecuters,who are head of the gestapo..for job security that these laws provide ...
for the protection of the sheeple that pay their salary,and kiss up to stay off the bad list.
law enforcement has turned into big business..where petty crime offenders are the target, while large crime offenders usually pay off or cut in crooked badge holders for turning their heads[;)][B)][V]
Face the hard facts...laws are created to control and generate revenue...those that enforce the laws, usually break laws to do it...the badge puts them above the law...and the code of conduct,by the badge holders...where one won't tell on the other...guaruntees they break them without fear of answering for their crimes.
it is a one sided trap..a politically correct gestapo...delivering the accused,to the system of politically elected judges and prosecuters,who are head of the gestapo..for job security that these laws provide ...
for the protection of the sheeple that pay their salary,and kiss up to stay off the bad list.
law enforcement has turned into big business..where petty crime offenders are the target, while large crime offenders usually pay off or cut in crooked badge holders for turning their heads[;)][B)][V]
Absoutely correct!! If you ger arrested by a "LEO" and then go to court, remember that the LEO, the prosecutor, and the judge all draw their paycheck at the same window. Think about it.....
quote:Originally posted by tomahawk
Face the hard facts...laws are created to control and generate revenue...those that enforce the laws, usually break laws to do it...the badge puts them above the law...and the code of conduct,by the badge holders...where one won't tell on the other...guaruntees they break them without fear of answering for their crimes.
it is a one sided trap..a politically correct gestapo...delivering the accused,to the system of politically elected judges and prosecuters,who are head of the gestapo..for job security that these laws provide ...
for the protection of the sheeple that pay their salary,and kiss up to stay off the bad list.
law enforcement has turned into big business..where petty crime offenders are the target, while large crime offenders usually pay off or cut in crooked badge holders for turning their heads[;)][B)][V]
Absoutely correct!! If you ger arrested by a "LEO" and then go to court, remember that the LEO, the prosecutor, and the judge all draw their paycheck at the same window. Think about it.....
So do you have the 'perfect' answer to the problem as you see it (above)??? I am all ears!!![}:)]
Once again you proved my point, there is no 'ideal/perfect' system in the real world!!![;)]
Jim, I have already stated my opinion on this thread, but I have a question. Not trying to be argumentative but do you have any info about the restrictions on rights the founding fathers supported?
To answer your question would be speculation, BUT the point I am making is the Founders were realistic, common sense people who knew there has never been and will never be a 'perfect/ideal' system with ZERO restrictions on the rights spelled out in the Constitution. I believe they would use the same test I use to consider what will work and not unnecessarily restrict the rights of the people. I could speculate how they would handle the current problems we are facing with our out of control government, and it would not be pretty!![;)]
You cannot seriously believe Jefferson would have advocated the restriction of a person to have to ask permission to be allowed to purchase a gun? This does not add up in any reality. His reply would be the same as you have gotten from many here. If you are safe to be among the citizens then your rights should not be abridged. If you are not then why are you free and not incarcerated or dead.
He would put the judicial system and juries back in the hands of the citizens as it was meant to be. Bad actors would be dealt with and citizens rights would be protected.
You have Jim standing here telling us he belives the SAME thing we do. REALLY?
Jim and Tr are on the same team. The team that leads to the destruction of our beloved constitution. All the "realist" BS aside.
When a wolf tells you he is not a wolf, but a gaurd dog, how many sheep do you let him eat before you doubt him?
It is not hard to tell around here WHO supports the constitution and who doesn't.
Seems lately that there are two types of people: the criminals and law enforcers.
Pardon me, let me correct myself:
Seems lately that there are three types of people: the criminals and the law enforcers, and then there is Jim Rau.
To answer your question would be speculation, BUT the point I am making is the Founders were realistic, common sense people who knew there has never been and will never be a 'perfect/ideal' system with ZERO restrictions on the rights spelled out in the Constitution.
"Speculation" is being quite generous. I prefer to take them literally! Speculate Pffft![:(!]