Now This Is Bulls$#@!

[Hellion]

And you know they are not letting just non violent(candy bar thieves) out,some thing has to be done to stop this shit!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_...s_early_release

[n0Mad]

We don't need prisons. We'll just give criminals a time-out. After all, it works with our kids.

</sarcasm>

Don't vote for Obama then. He wants to do away with all concealed carry nationwide. Sure, let's let our criminals out of prison to save money and then take away our means to protect ourselves against them. Can't count on the cops because:

A) Forces are getting cut to save money as well, and

2) The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to respond to any call.

Besides, when seconds count the police are just minutes away anyway. Especially in Royal Oak where they might show up after 40 minutes.

[ttogreh]

I don't see how Obama could do away with concealed carry nationwide... isn't that a state sovereignty issue? Where did you read that?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

There are a lot of different individual proposals listed in that article, some of them are pretty mild, nothing particularly crazy or nutcase. Some of them seem overly drastic and risky but some of the others are basically just minor changes to prison lengths for non violent crimes.

The real fix (expense in maintaining prisons) is to legalize Marijuana and some of the other less-dangerous-than-alcohol drugs. Would cut down the prison population by massive proportions overnight.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I don't see how Obama could do away with concealed carry nationwide... isn't that a state sovereignty issue? Where did you read that?

Right now it is left to the states, i know as there's a complicated web of various laws from place to place and state to state (with most states having some sort of right-to-carry law). Its such a headache to figure out when/where/who/how/why its ok to carry concealed weapons i wouldn't even bother. If its something that would require a constitutional amendment or not to revoke from the states I'm not sure.

I found this obama quote:

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

That doesn't mean he could actually get a law passed against it though (without and amendment) Just him stating his stance. It does seem like something congress could do without an amendment though, since there are already endless gun control laws of varying flavors.

[ttogreh]

Well, assuming that the more conservative Supreme Court overturns the D.C. gun ban, won't that make a congressional ban of concealed carry incredibly controversial? Well, more controversial, right?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

An amendment is only a congressional issue for the first couple phases of the process. It has to be sent to the states and ratified buy a majority (I think at least 38 states, would have to read the amendment process again).

And really.. no matter what... unless they pull some magical rabbit out of their asses, what ever the Court decides on that issue is going to cause a major ruckus.

[Sybil]

Hmmm.

What I got out of the first portion of the article was this "release the prisoners" idea is "if you follow rules then you get 12 days subtracted from your sentence each month."

"..some violent offenders would be eligible but not those serving life sentences."

The article didnt scare me. Or rial me up..

There are rules in prison. There are rules in society. If you do well, good for you. If not, shame on you.

They arent going to open the cells and free 'em all, handin' 'em guns on the way out..

[Destroit]

The real fix (expense in maintaining prisons) is to legalize Marijuana and some of the other less-dangerous-than-alcohol drugs. Would cut down the prison population by massive proportions overnight.

[Hellion]

Yeah, stealing a 25 cent bag of chips,or telling a cop to fuck off,exposing corruption,and you get in more trouble than, killing someone,blowing up a city,or whatever,even suicide is a felony in most states,(they Own You)other than that violent sick crimminals should never have any rights whatsoever.

[n0Mad]

The real fix (expense in maintaining prisons) is to legalize Marijuana and some of the other less-dangerous-than-alcohol drugs. Would cut down the prison population by massive proportions overnight.

I can totally agree with that!

[ttogreh]

What's really funny, Darque, is that I have heard, I haven't really checked it out though, that in some countries, suicide is punishable by the death penalty.

[n0Mad]

I found this obama quote:

I found this story from another forum:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SandyFr...p;comments=true

[rose_and_swords]

I found this story from another forum:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SandyFr...p;comments=true

The whole thing over his pastor made me uncomfortable, this scares me:

One question that has not gotten much attention, however, asks if Obama supports legislation to, “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” His one-word answer—uncommonly direct and lacking the flowery eloquence we’ve come to expect from him—was “Yes.”

[ttogreh]

I think, coming from a place like Inner-city Chicago, where handgun violence is so prevalent, one may come to the conclusion that such weapons hurt far, far more than they could ever help. Indeed, there really are no compelling data sets that effectively counter the bleeding fifteen year old corpse of a straight-A student who chose to go to the convenience store at the wrong time.

So, I get why Obama can be so against handguns and concealed carry laws. I respectfully disagree, and submit to the assertion that gun violence is a plague on urban communities.

Unfortunately, you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, so any laws against the legal possession of firearms are doomed to fail against the illegal firearms trade, and the illegal use of firearms. The D.C. gun ban, with Virginia and Maryland having far less stringent laws, is proof positive that a comprehensive gun ban is the only thing that would work, and since any law that would ever get out of congress would be riddled with loopholes that a Mack truck could drive through...

It's drugs. Drugs provide incentive for violent behavior. Simply put a "war" on a commercial product is completely idiotic and is killing local budgets, full stop.

Of course, the lefty base has an irrational fear of the guns, and the centrist majority despises drugs... it's political suicide to advocate a position that would actually work.

[DarkRacer]

Hmm, this sounds very familar, I guess he hasn't seen the stats from Austraila where they have taken away all gun rights from civillians. Before the gun ban there, they a a low gun crime rate, mainly due to the fact that everybody's mother's brother cousin aunt had a gun. Now only criminals and the military and some police have them now and the gun crime rate has gone up greatly. I'll find the article showing that in a sec.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

The age-old argument about banning guns, and then having only criminals with the guns is an interesting one.

Australia did a shit job, passed the law, but then didn't enforce it fully, aggressively enough. Same deal for the UK awhile back. This is a good example of what would probably happen in the US if there was a gun-ban. Our gun culture is so well developed , that any ban would still leave tons of guns out there, get rid of them in the inner cities? Nope, they will just filter back in from other areas, needs to be whole and total if its to work, not just handguns, not just X type of guns. Then we'd need a hardcore search and seizure policy, which, good luck getting that enforced.

That's the rub, it just doesn't seem realistic. Somehow they just have to be vaporized and even then it would then require secure borders to keep them out... hah, yeah right. These days most politicians don't want to try and survive too loud of a secure-borders campaign, which would be seen as an anti-Latino stance, and political suicide in many states.

But arms control must have some positive effects. Somehow , even though I've not done a study, if every household had the right to tanks , nuclear bombs, mounted machine guns and other military level hardware, i really doubt we'd have a safer country. It seems almost self-evident that some level of arms control (only known as gun control nowadays since such private ownership of really serious weapons has long been restricted) is necessary for safety. And, at least in the US the criminals also have a very hard time getting ahold of such weapons and/or keeping them for very long.

Then you have to throw personal freedom in there, not just a straight "whats safer". Since people tend to value their personal freedom and it scales up and down with the perceived risk.

Its a big tangle, not easily figured out i don't think.

[ttogreh]

Right. The federal system is paramount to making some sort of national policy that makes sense. I would imagine that a truck with two high powered deer rifles in a rack in front of a school would get two different responses in a small town in Montana and in Manhattan, New York.

Assuming that it's deer season in Montana, of course.

The second, fourth, and tenth amendments are living reminders of a time in American history where the powerful government thousands of miles away became so onerous and oppressive that bloody, violent revolution was the only answer. Our founders created a document that was imperfect, and the slavery issue came to a boil not some eighty years after the founding of the republic. That being said, I feel that we should not look at a personal ability to defend one's self with deadly force as a threat, but as a right.

Just like screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater is an abuse of the first amendment, gun crime in inner cities is an abuse of the second.

We need to find a way of punishing the abuses while protecting the thoughtful use of this right. I have history to support my belief that the onerous restriction and criminalization of the use of a commercial product breeds crime. Indeed, gangland Chicago after prohibition was rife with shocking gun violence. I find that to be an elegant counter to Obama's apparent belief that guns are the root of the problem.

Troy, we just can't expect to ban our way out of a problem. It is when personal responsibility is trusted and government regulation moderates the excesses of that policy, that crime loses its teeth. Alcohol is legal almost everywhere. Moonshine? The only reason it exists is because Appalachian folk have a cultural history with it, and there is a thrill in not paying the tax.

Srsly, for realz, it is teh drugz0rz, dooods...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I have to agree. Whole sale bans have never worked, on anything... Just ask the Catholic Church about Crossbows...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OH! I just thought of a perfect example that dates back to WWII. My grandfather confiscated a "pistol" during WWII in Germany. It's made from copper pipe. The ball shot for it.. is melted plumbing.

You take away the right to bear arms.. and the people will take that right back. Even if they have to make the arms.

[n0Mad]

Well said ttogreh and Gaf.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Right. The federal system is paramount to making some sort of national policy that makes sense. I would imagine that a truck with two high powered deer rifles in a rack in front of a school would get two different responses in a small town in Montana and in Manhattan, New York.

Assuming that it's deer season in Montana, of course.

The second, fourth, and tenth amendments are living reminders of a time in American history where the powerful government thousands of miles away became so onerous and oppressive that bloody, violent revolution was the only answer. Our founders created a document that was imperfect, and the slavery issue came to a boil not some eighty years after the founding of the republic. That being said, I feel that we should not look at a personal ability to defend one's self with deadly force as a threat, but as a right.

Just like screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater is an abuse of the first amendment, gun crime in inner cities is an abuse of the second.

We need to find a way of punishing the abuses while protecting the thoughtful use of this right. I have history to support my belief that the onerous restriction and criminalization of the use of a commercial product breeds crime. Indeed, gangland Chicago after prohibition was rife with shocking gun violence. I find that to be an elegant counter to Obama's apparent belief that guns are the root of the problem.

Troy, we just can't expect to ban our way out of a problem. It is when personal responsibility is trusted and government regulation moderates the excesses of that policy, that crime loses its teeth. Alcohol is legal almost everywhere. Moonshine? The only reason it exists is because Appalachian folk have a cultural history with it, and there is a thrill in not paying the tax.

Srsly, for realz, it is teh drugz0rz, dooods...

The tone seems to be as if your contradicting what i said, but really there's nothing there I particularly disagree with or contradictory to what i said. You might not even have meant it that way, I'm just getting that impression.

I was making more of a point about a total vaporization type gun ban would be unrealistic and some of the finer points as to why and that only that type of ban would have the effect that the more anti-arms types expect. The point was that a "real" gun ban, of the sort of Utopian Idealist kind probably would work (cut down on homicide), but that it was not realistic possible to pull off. So my end conclusion is the same as yours, just i get to it from a different route i guess. Along with my more libertarian comment about its not just a question of pragmatic effect, its also a personal freedom issue, and even if we could put the Utopian Unrealistic Plan into effect somehow, that wouldn't be the end of the story due to personal freedom issues.

The sort of minor point about "well guns don't kill people people kill people." Is true, but there's a lot of finer subtext to it and its not quite as black & white as some might want it to be. Its generally difficult to discuss, since people react so strongly one way or the other before the discussion really gets rolling. Not that anyone here has done that in this thread, just a general comment.

[ttogreh]

I do my best writing from a contrary point of view. It's just the easiest way I have found to express myself, though it does get me into trouble from reactionary types, once in a while...