Gun Show "Accidents"...

[filletfetish]

Well put AGAIN, No1son. Your logic and perception are good. As far as my OWN personal beliefs on "penalties" towards crime, will say it yet again. I BELIEVE in the DEATH PENALTY becoming MANDATORY for ANY murder not commited in direct SELF DEFENSE. Also DEATH for treason, rape, robbery, car jacking, kidnapping, arson, KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY polluting on a vast scale, KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY defrauding on a vast scale. Having or threatening to use a weapon (gun, knife, baseball bat) to commit a crime whether you actually USE it or not. There`s a couple others. Oh yeah, and no prison sentences longer than 10 yrs. If longer than 10 yrs, you are PUT TO DEATH. I do not believe in "warehousing" convicts at taxpayer expense. The ONLY 'proven" cure for most criminal behavior is DEATH, plus you have ZERO "repeat offenders, EVER. Can I make that any CLEARER?

Do you also understand that you're a criminal? Every person that has a drivers license is a criminal. Ever been 1 mile over the speed limit? Have you always made a complete stop when at a stop sign or traffic light? Do you always use your turn signal?

Most people feel like they can get away with speeding as long as they're not going more tha 5 mph over the posted limit. If someone feels I wrong, surely speak up. Why do we exceed the speed limit? Because we think we can get away with it. I mean it's only a ticket....but isn't it still breaking the law?

[Cray]

Don't sign me up for anything copying European laws. Been in most of their countries and have no desire to live like they do with the laws they have.

[NeonMoon]

Don't sign me up for anything copying European laws. Been in most of their countries and have no desire to live like they do with the laws they have.

Won't be a problem cray....we're headin' 3rd world or Bust

[Lowellhturner]

My personal thoughts are if you WILLINGLY commit an act that you injure or kill another person with profit in mind, DIE. Betray your country for profit? DIE. Use ANY weapon to help commit a crime? DIE. Kidnap someone for ransom? LOSE YOUR LIFE. Commit rape, or molest a child? FORFEIT YOUR LIFE. Drive drunk and injure or kill someone? EXECUTION. KNOWINGLY market a product that is harmful to others? BE KILLED. Burn down a house or blding for ANY REASON? GET SENT SOMEWHERE VERY WARM (and AIN`T talking about the Bahamas or Acapulco). Carjack somene? GET "JACKED" YOURSELF. Commit the crime, get convicted, have 1 appeal, and within say 5yrs "it`s DYING TIME." TELL ME that would NOT take a BIG ole BITE out of crime`s ass. After 10 yrs of that, except for speeders there wouldn`t BE any criminals LEFT alive to COMMIT any crimes...you forget; I`m "old school"...

[Cane Pole]

You did come from my "old school".

[no1son]

Do you also understand that you're a criminal? Every person that has a drivers license is a criminal. Ever been 1 mile over the speed limit? Have you always made a complete stop when at a stop sign or traffic light? Do you always use your turn signal?

Most people feel like they can get away with speeding as long as they're not going more tha 5 mph over the posted limit. If someone feels I wrong, surely speak up. Why do we exceed the speed limit? Because we think we can get away with it. I mean it's only a ticket....but isn't it still breaking the law?

Actually not a criminal unless convicted. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a very good standard for the protection of individual rights. We fudge that at our own risk as a society. No question that some folks play on technicalities to use that to their own benefit, but government violating the rights of any innocent is far worse, IMO. But the law must not only be fair, it must be administered fairly. That last is really the usual gripe against government and the biggest danger from government.

I certainly try not to violate either traffic laws or the rules of the road. That was drilled into me years ago when I was a bus driver and "chargeables" were a ticket to unemployment. That stuck and I have come to accept that as the best course for operating a motor vehicle. I generally get passed on the highway if the speed limit is over 65 and below that I set my auto to what the occasional speed marker says that I am not traveling over the posted limit. I take those speed signs to be correct enough to know what my speedometer is actually reading. Furthermore I would rather have those who fudge the limits and the right of way ahead of me where I can see emergencies developing rather than overtaking me from the rear, where I have far less ability to react. I will actually pull over for a tail gater. I defintitely want such a driver ahead of me rather than on my bumper. Surprising how often I still catch up to those people at the next stop sign or traffic light. All they gain is a couple of minutes anyway in most cases, not valuable enough under any circumstances to chance harming someone else.

[no1son]

My personal thoughts are if you WILLINGLY commit an act that you injure or kill another person with profit in mind, DIE. Betray your country for profit? DIE. Use ANY weapon to help commit a crime? DIE. Kidnap someone for ransom? LOSE YOUR LIFE. Commit rape, or molest a child? FORFEIT YOUR LIFE. Drive drunk and injure or kill someone? EXECUTION. KNOWINGLY market a product that is harmful to others? BE KILLED. Burn down a house or blding for ANY REASON? GET SENT SOMEWHERE VERY WARM (and AIN`T talking about the Bahamas or Acapulco). Carjack somene? GET "JACKED" YOURSELF. Commit the crime, get convicted, have 1 appeal, and within say 5yrs "it`s DYING TIME." TELL ME that would NOT take a BIG ole BITE out of crime`s ass. After 10 yrs of that, except for speeders there wouldn`t BE any criminals LEFT alive to COMMIT any crimes...you forget; I`m "old school"...

I am convinced that execution is appropriate in some cases, though I may not agree on which ones. The huge BUT that I carry is that IMO the execution of an innocent is the worst possible offense any society can take against the personal rights of its citizens. There is no possibility of any kind of restitution for mistakes in that case.

OTOH I do not see any reason why incarcerated convicts are not liable for the expense of their convictions and incarceration. Either pay up or work it off at least to the best of their abilities. I don't say incarceration at brutually hard labor but definitely at productive labor against the expense involved, including restitution to any victims. I do not see the legitimacy of "country club" prisons either.

When one gets to corporate offenses one gets out onto really thin ice. Originally they were only "persons" in a commercial sense. Endowing them with political rights is part of what led to the Revolution, when the English crown and its Prime Minister North chose to subsidize one and use it as a surrogate to add India to the Empire through the colonial taxation and suppression rather than seating colonial representatives in the Commons which is what they started out requesting. That initial movement is where "No Taxation Without Representation" originated. Virtually all of the original patriots started out agitating for the same rights as other English commoners to have their representatives seated in the House of Commons to have some say in English taxation. Not blankedly opposed to taxation but rather participating in ruling on it. Some important exceptions to be sure, but most of the originals wanted complete commer English citizenship rights to begin with.

The crown opted for corporate subsidy at the expense of the colonists, (also to a certain degree native English who provided extensive if mostly futile resistance in the English Parliament as well). Virtually of the original patriots proved to be quite antagonistic to corporately organized business as the new republic established itself. They knew exactly why George III acted against their interests from the beginning. They would have been aghast at the Citizens United ruling freeing corporate interests to intervene in politics and especially at the application of it allowing completely hidden sources of revenue for that purpose.

[filletfetish]

Actually not a criminal unless convicted. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a very good standard for the protection of individual rights. We fudge that at our own risk as a society. No question that some folks play on technicalities to use that to their own benefit, but government violating the rights of any innocent is far worse, IMO. But the law must not only be fair, it must be administered fairly. That last is really the usual gripe against government and the biggest danger from government.

I certainly try not to violate either traffic laws or the rules of the road. That was drilled into me years ago when I was a bus driver and "chargeables" were a ticket to unemployment. That stuck and I have come to accept that as the best course for operating a motor vehicle. I generally get passed on the highway if the speed limit is over 65 and below that I set my auto to what the occasional speed marker says that I am not traveling over the posted limit. I take those speed signs to be correct enough to know what my speedometer is actually reading. Furthermore I would rather have those who fudge the limits and the right of way ahead of me where I can see emergencies developing rather than overtaking me from the rear, where I have far less ability to react. I will actually pull over for a tail gater. I defintitely want such a driver ahead of me rather than on my bumper. Surprising how often I still catch up to those people at the next stop sign or traffic light. All they gain is a couple of minutes anyway in most cases, not valuable enough under any circumstances to chance harming someone else.

Personal opinion, but I don't think someone has to have a criminal record to be a criminal. Just like I don't have to see someone sin to know they're a sinner.

I was simply using the analogy because no one can dispute the fact they've never broken the law, or rather, engaged in criminal activity. However, to what extent and nature a person conducts their criminal activity is only up to the person.

[no1son]

Personal opinion, but I don't think someone has to have a criminal record to be a criminal. Just like I don't have to see someone sin to know they're a sinner.

I was simply using the analogy because no one can dispute the fact they've never broken the law, or rather, engaged in criminal activity. However, to what extent and nature a person conducts their criminal activity is only up to the person.

Innocent until proven guilty is embedded in the Constitution, criminal only on conviction, and then one that stands up to appeal, that derived from principles in preceding English Common Law. It is a civic definition and a basic American principle, one to be handled carefully, which your analogy does not do.

No argument that some people habitually break laws they can get away with. Most of us have accidentally or rarely broken the law, also, myself included, no argument about that either. I do not personally subscribe to the notion of no harm no foul, though. Barring any other intervention, we each have to judge ourselves, which I try to do, and I think most everybody else does for the most part anyway.

As for your statement about sin, it requires that you have to subscribe to a religion that considers humans to be inherently corrupt, which I do not; I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of humans ever mean to harm others, depending a lot on what cultural standards (apart from legal ones) are in force for them. We are a social animal after all and tend to go along with our fellows. That religious freedom is also embedded in the Constitution.

I like the Constitution; I do not like to see it twisted to support personal bias neither civic, cultural nor religious. This country has done an almost impossible job of merging backgrounds from a very pluralistic set of origins into a more or less workable national identity. That is something to be proud of and I am. I do not see the disagreements that arise in that process to be evil, though some uses made of them certainly are, and some humans are definitely mostly evil as well, and absolutely have to be dealt with as such. But then that is my personal outlook.

FWIW I don't consider most if not quite all postings here to be more than disagreement, hardly evil or even close to it, if you want to put it that way. Some are mean spirited to be sure but that is a different thing entirely, and generally grows out of some perception, accurate or not, of endangerment.

Sticks and stones and all that ... As pluralistic as we are as a people, Americans definitely need thick skins to get along.

[fishingpox]

I agree with this post. I used to not be for...believe it or not... any executions, the Death penalty. Then, I realized one day for the most part the savages are not being rehabilitated. They serve their time and put back on the streets. As LT stated above the list of those who deserve to forfeit their lives by commiting certain crimes; now I believe for society best interest is for them to die before being set free.

A far a taxation, ask Phil Michelson..spelling on last name...the golfer, about taxation. He says he is paying 62%...WTH, anybody in here paying that would be screaming bloody murder. I would say most people in here don't mind paying taxes as long as they are beneficiaries of those enityies where our money goes. Sure we benefit from utilities, law enforcement, fire protection, department of human services, but the wasted money needs to stop. A lot of welfare needs to stop, though it is not all the economic woo's.

My fear is that this POS in the Whitehouse is trying his hardest to divide the country. Spineless Republicans are with him. That they now realize, they are distroying this countries economy that they need to disarm the people as much as possible. They will start a civil war or a revolution. Either way there will be much blood shed. If you don't think it can happen in this country, hell, just look at the radical leadership on both sides. Both parties are leading us to the same place.

I am convinced that execution is appropriate in some cases, though I may not agree on which ones. The huge BUT that I carry is that IMO the execution of an innocent is the worst possible offense any society can take against the personal rights of its citizens. There is no possibility of any kind of restitution for mistakes in that case.

OTOH I do not see any reason why incarcerated convicts are not liable for the expense of their convictions and incarceration. Either pay up or work it off at least to the best of their abilities. I don't say incarceration at brutually hard labor but definitely at productive labor against the expense involved, including restitution to any victims. I do not see the legitimacy of "country club" prisons either.

When one gets to corporate offenses one gets out onto really thin ice. Originally they were only "persons" in a commercial sense. Endowing them with political rights is part of what led to the Revolution, when the English crown and its Prime Minister North chose to subsidize one and use it as a surrogate to add India to the Empire through the colonial taxation and suppression rather than seating colonial representatives in the Commons which is what they started out requesting. That initial movement is where "No Taxation Without Representation" originated. Virtually all of the original patriots started out agitating for the same rights as other English commoners to have their representatives seated in the House of Commons to have some say in English taxation. Not blankedly opposed to taxation but rather participating in ruling on it. Some important exceptions to be sure, but most of the originals wanted complete commer English citizenship rights to begin with.

The crown opted for corporate subsidy at the expense of the colonists, (also to a certain degree native English who provided extensive if mostly futile resistance in the English Parliament as well). Virtually of the original patriots proved to be quite antagonistic to corporately organized business as the new republic established itself. They knew exactly why George III acted against their interests from the beginning. They would have been aghast at the Citizens United ruling freeing corporate interests to intervene in politics and especially at the application of it allowing completely hidden sources of revenue for that purpose.