|
|
Post by thywar on Jul 28, 2012 20:26:51 GMT -7
Yeah and about Obama.. I can tell you where he will come down if he is re-elected.. as he told Putin..'Just hang on, this is my last election and afterwards I can be more flexible'... if he is re-elected you can bet the executive orders will be coming fast and furious (hmm reading that again.. that wasn't a pun). If he is reelected there is a chance the Dems keep the senate and have a larger majority in the house.. Romney wins, I think Repubs take the Senate (barely..51-49) and they keep the house. Schumer isn't up for reelection.. he'll bring anything forward.. and I don't believe the other 6 senators are either.. so they don't care and they'll push this issue so the media will attack Romney on it. Remember they don't really care about gun control they care about having more power.
|
|
|
|
Post by celticwarrior on Jul 28, 2012 20:38:33 GMT -7
Sadly, he doesn't NEED new E.O.'s. The ones that Bush put into action are MORE than enough to take over the country and do whatever he wants. Between that and the Patriot Act, which Bush got passed and Obama signed off on to continue throughout his term, we would have very little in the way of freedoms or liberty should someone choose to enact them during some 'emergency', such as a massive economic collapse. I don't trust EITHER party, and whether they are fascists or socialists, the folks being elected this time around don't have the PEOPLE as their primary interest. None of them care about the law, the Constitution or the People and the liberty we are guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. They just care about pandering to special interests and corporate sponsors. It is a lose-lose situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by thywar on Jul 28, 2012 20:50:37 GMT -7
But Bush didn't use his power in the same way I believe Obama would (He didn't go charging in to take over NOLA during Katrina, although he kept trying to get Nagin and the governor to make a decision). We're all screwed here and I think we're just trying to hang on till it either crashes on us or it starts to make a gradual recovery. I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
|
Post by celticwarrior on Jul 29, 2012 21:14:14 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Pinpin on Jul 30, 2012 6:37:02 GMT -7
"these high capacity [guns]… you can shoot fifty to sixty rounds within a minute."
The Brits could almost do the same with their No.4 Mk.1 rifles in WWII. Should we ban those as well? (redundant question, the answer is no)
|
|
|
|
Post by cowgirlup on Jul 30, 2012 7:10:27 GMT -7
As if in this case it would matter what type of guns he had. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. No where to run and no one to stop him. I''m sure he would have had time to pop a mag and put in a new one on a smaller capacity gun. What great laws we have. Few lawmakers want you to defend yourself against something like this. Yet the people of Colorado will get to hear the insanity plea and pay for his housing and medical treatments for the rest of his life I bet. Sounds fair???  |
|
|
|
Post by thywar on Jul 30, 2012 18:06:27 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Jul 31, 2012 2:35:56 GMT -7
A short list of things I believe reasonable; - Taking away cars from repeated DUI offenders
- Executing convicted drug dealers (meth/coke/etc, not weed)
- Firing everyone in congress and the white house to start over with 1 term limits
- Executing convicted child molestors
- Basing theft conviction sentences on the dollar value stolen with life imprisonment for anyone convicted of theft over 1 million in any form
So who sets what is reasonable? I am certain there are many that would consider my version unreasonable. Using the term 'reasonable' and applying it to the law is unreasonable to me simply due to it's subjectivity. |
|
|
|
Post by cowgirlup on Jul 31, 2012 4:54:27 GMT -7
I think your short list is perfectly fair( except #3 would mean a perpetual state of elections and campaigning). I'd be all for it. But the world is full of criminals. Darn subjectivity!
|
|
|
|
Post by angelhelp on Jul 31, 2012 10:58:26 GMT -7
A short list of things I believe reasonable; - Taking away cars from repeated DUI offenders
- Executing convicted drug dealers (meth/coke/etc, not weed)
- Firing everyone in congress and the white house to start over with 1 term limits
- Executing convicted child molestors
- Basing theft conviction sentences on the dollar value stolen with life imprisonment for anyone convicted of theft over 1 million in any form
So who sets what is reasonable? I am certain there are many that would consider my version unreasonable. Using the term 'reasonable' and applying it to the law is unreasonable to me simply due to it's subjectivity. +1 on your reasonableness. I'd like to add that victims of crimes ought to have a say in the penalties. In instances where the victim is dead, the family ought to have a say. As a survivor of sexual abuse, I would have no problem whatsoever executing the abuser. Lastly, those holding office ought to remain unpaid during their term of office. I believe it helpful to require military service of these folks as well. |
|
|
|
Post by mud on Jul 31, 2012 20:25:36 GMT -7
If I figure out how to get the article from print to PC I will post it but the extent of it is when they passed the NFA in 1934 it was NOT the regulation of guns that led to a drop in crime but the death penalty ratio of 1:2 . It is currently now 1:74 meaning that only one in 74 on death row will ever be executed as opposed to half of every death row inmate. The drop in capital punishment directly correlates to a rise in murder and violent crime. The article is in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette dated July 27th by Dana D. Kelly
|
|
