- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 37,165
- Reaction score
- 25,335
The content is the same, I just added a specification I assumed was implicit.Don't they call that moving the goalpost? Why are why changing the content and meaning of the posts?
The content is the same, I just added a specification I assumed was implicit.Don't they call that moving the goalpost? Why are why changing the content and meaning of the posts?
We shouldn’t waste time tracking people who take SSRI’s but divert that time to track violent felons, is that a fair representation then?I love how you cherry pick different years when you compare data. Confirmation bias locomotive.
That wasn't the strawman. The two of you might read the OP a bit more carefully.
Ever been to Italy? Don’t express that sentiment too loud.Living with mom at 30? Now that’s gangsta
No, the guy in the OP wasn't a felon, he was acquitted of felony charges, @Madmick wants people tracked for being acquitted of violent crimes.We shouldn’t waste time tracking people who take SSRI’s but divert that time to track violent felons, is that a fair representation then?
I don’t think we should track people taking pills (although the long term effects and effectiveness and overprescription needs a lot more focus), but why should one exclude the other? There’s no connection.
If it were a factor in mass and school shootings then I think it should be researched.
Seems like a transgression of civil rights.No, the guy in the OP wasn't a felon, he was acquitted of felony charges, @Madmick wants people tracked for being acquitted of violent crimes.
Bye ho.That's the job he signed up for.
Kinda sad that killing a cop illicits a bigger revenge response than killing a soccer mom. And Im pro cop more than pro gang banger, but im no boot licker... but hes right. It is a gang mentality.Usually killing a cop is a capital offense.
I don’t disagree with you at all, though. Especially domestic violence cases, since what mass shooters often have in common is a history of dolestic violence/violence towards women.Hmm, ok well yea in that case I would say all types of violent, or violence intended crimes deserve much stricter observance. I'm a big believer for 2A, but I feel anyone who has committed crimes of harmful nature, whether it be armed robbery, to sexual assault, to domestic violence should have that record restrict them from being able to own a gun. They have shown what they are capable of, and shouldn't be given easy access to escalate their aggression. Isn't over half of female gun deaths from husband/boyfriend? Most of those cases have a domestic violence history, why is the dude able to own a gun after beating his wife?? For the guy who got arrested for buying weed or stealing shampoo from walmart it's fine, but aggression incidents are a no no for me.
I think preventing those types of people from owning guns would go a long way in gun related crimes, rather than restricting someone like me who looks to go to the range every two months and owns a few for home defense. There are always outliers, but the amount of crimes committed by repeat and violent offenders dwarf isolated incidents like mass shootings, but those are the ones that get the gun control conversations.
Who else?Sad case here... all I'm going to say is getting out of law enforcement was the best decision of my life.
Bye ho.
Lots of libtards banned
For me, it’s about measured approaches. In this case, the failures rest on the DA for not pursuing charges in previous arrests and for not getting convictions of violent crimes. There is no problem in the rules here, as far as I can see, but a problem of enforcement.I like libertarians, but only as a personal political philosophy. As a club, it sucks balls. It's a congregation of impotency supporting a bunch of people who lose elections, and don't have any power.
But I will go further. In this instance even the philosophy falls short: PEOPLE ARE DYING. Cops, schoolchildren, unarmed men, everyday Americans that don't fit any special victim rubric.
What do you think the point of government is-- if not to protect the life of its citizens? At its absolute minimum the state must be the mediating authority which resolves issues of justice, and acts to bolster conditions that give rise to the greatest levels of it. As much as I loathe proposed liberal solutions at least they understand something more drastic must be done to address our gun violence issue. Half measures and ideological purity are a space for cowards.
It doesn't address the problem, it doesn't solve anything. Protest the cost, but don't fool yourself into believing that inaction is enlightened.
Yet whenever people talk about regulating the secondary market for guns or straw purcharse the NRA and the right talk about "Gun grabbin'".
Owning a gun is a right, being able to sell guns isnt.
You mean a private sale between two folks? That "secondary market for guns"?
Can you show where the NRA has stated support for straw purchases?
Wut?
1.- Yes, the unregulated secondary market.
2.-
NRA Demands Softer Penalties for Straw Purchasers
https://billmoyers.com/2013/04/04/nra-demands-softer-penalties-for-straw-purchasers/
'Murica, the country where selling weed is a serious crime, but buying death tools for criminals is a minor felony.