Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

1. I agree with much of your #1 above. Prisons are a nightmare environment, & no one should be sent there unless we are positive they are guilty. Plus, the entire prison system needs major reform, & private prison guard companies need to be eliminated from the picture entirely. There have been many cases where prisoners who have been on their best behaviors & cooperative for years inside the system, have been prevented by the guard companies from being released due to some manufactured minor infraction. Companies do this to prevent the loss of income from having that prisoner under their care. It's a rotten system.
2. I pretty much agree with your #2 statement above, except that in accordance with part of your #1 point, about a large percentage of our current prison population being innocent, making sentences more severe would affect those innocents too. There needs to be some way to separate those unquestionably guilty from those whose guilt is less certain.
3. I believe there was a time several decades ago, when liberals had in place, educational systems to train prisoners for honorable & legal jobs after their release. When those programs were in place, fewer prisoners recycled back into jails. But those programs were killed off by legislators who believe the best answer was harsher punishments. That idea has proven to be a living nightmare, both for those imprisoned (see your #1 above), & the society wrecked by those released without efforts made toward personal change. I think your idea would be best applied toward those criminals whose record leaves no room for doubt about violent guilt, but not for everyone.
4. The Constitution gives us the right to own a gun, but not the right to carry one in public everywhere one goes. I have no problem with anyone owning a gun & keeping it at home,or taking it hunting, or using it at a shooting range. But I feel personally uncomfortable whenever I see someone carrying a gun on the street alongside the public. That's not necessary, & I oppose it.
5. Just last week I watched a news broadcast showing a man who had been incarcerated for 30 years for a murder we can now prove he didn't commit. I've heard of several other similar cases. A swift death penalty can contribute to an even more sinister abuse of power, by killing some we are convinced are guilty, when they aren't. That turns us into murderers just like those you're so livid about. I agree with your #5 above for ONLY those individuals we have unmistakable evidence showing their guilt to a level beyond question. I don't support it for the average case.
6. War itself is an act of violence, & should always be avoided. Making war on an issue never resolves it. Rather, it is better to declare one's intent to solve a problem rather than make war with it. Also, aliens--illegal or otherwise--are a small portion of our criminal activity. I disagree with your #6. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

That's funny, I thought is said the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Does your copy say not infringed while you are in your home?

I don't like listening to idiots talk, either, but I understand that is their right and I tolerate others exercising their rights as they wish while respecting mine.

I actually support the complete overhaul of the Justice system. I would only use our current system for those crimes so heinous that restitution is impossible. And where we have irrefutable evidence of a mass murderer, video and so forth backed up by crime scene evidence, I support a responsible press no providing them a platform and I sure as hell wouldn't publish their manifesto. It's proven that heavy press coverage produces copy cats, and they are so irresponsible that probably the ultimate answer if for us to change the channel, because as long as it draws our eyeballs, they will continue to fill us with violence porn.

On all other crimes, I would focus on victim and restitution rather than retribution. For example, car theft, burglary and so forth. On conviction, the damage done to the victim is totaled, plus a penalty, and they work it off in minimum security prison industry at minimum wage. When they have repaid their debt, they leave, hopefully with a marketable skill. Where there is no victim, there would be no crime.

 

It is EXACTLY as I claimed. I love how these clowns claim that a published compact between We The People and government WE formed can suddenly just change meaning, and as luck would have it, to suddenly support a Progressive belief. I especially laugh when its Lawyers spreading their crap, since we routinely use attorneys to draft binding documents. I'd love ask them if other documents suddenly "change" like this, for example:

• Their retainer agreements?
• Their fee schedules?
• Their published Bar results?
• Their insurance policies?
• Their mortgage papers?

 

The VT killer killed 2 students in dorms first, then left for about 2 hours before returning with two semi-automatic pistols & 19 magazines of ammo, each holding either 10 or 15 rounds. He had plenty of time to change magazines as he walked around killing people, before authorities found & confronted him. Every event is different, but I continue to contend that having smaller magazine capacities would help in most future cases, to save lives.

 

As Americans, we feel we have the right to change government. And, we do. But we must accomplish that thru peaceful means--NOT armed insurrection. The place to make that change in in the ballot box on voting day.

 

I'd like a 5 round limit for magazines sold to private owners, & no free carry laws.

 

The founding fathers & the framing fathers, both left it to future generations to interpret &/or change their Constitution as we see fit.

 

As a practicing liberal, I disagree with your assertion that we are trying to deprive anyone of their rights. That's total BS. I agree that criminals & mental cases with guns are just as dangerous today as the natives were in early America. But I don't agree that having every American carry a weapon is the answer. We're supposed to be a nation of law & order. That can only be reality if we give the power of law enforcement to a group of individuals specially trained for that job. In the past, we succeeded with that. I feel that what you are suggesting is the equivalent of turning America into a vigilante society, with every man or woman responsible for their own safety. That's NOT a nation, country, or society I want to promote or be a part of. There is nothing attractive about it. It would be Hell on Earth.

 

Americans have always disagreed with each other. Yet, they all worked together to make this nation a success for over two & a half centuries. We would dishonor them if we failed to measure up to their standards. You & I disagree on guns. Possibly we disagree on more than guns. But I'd bet we agree on more things than we disagree on overall. We're both Americans--& that means a lot. I don't know what the final answer is to the growing mass killings, but I do know I don't want to turn my America & your America into an armed camp. Allowing a few crazy extremist killers to convince all Americans to become armed citizens, afraid to walk down the street without a gun, is sheer lunacy. That's not an image of a free, democratic society that matches our historic ideal. It is certainly one I don't want to promote.

 

Every generation faces challenges determined by that generation. Making America into an armed camp isn't really a viable answer. That goes against the whole idea of a nation of laws, not men. When everyone carries a gun around, it'll become a land of men, where the strongest dictate to the weaker, & all disagreement is met with violence. That's certainly not an America I ever want to see.

 

In a short term event, those 3 seconds mount up to minutes, & minutes of delay translate into lives saved.

 

What is a free carry law?

 

And what exactly did they gain by it?

 

Your post sounds like you don't regard it as worth while to alter a few laws in order to save a life or two. Would it matter if one of those lives were yours? Your spouse? Your child? A close friend? Clearly what you & I regard as important, are quite different.

 

The VT shooter was active for over two hours. The Dayton shooter lasted 30 seconds. There are many factors involved in solving this conundrum. Stop fighting every idea posed by us liberals & start working toward a solution with us.

 

That sound rather defeatist. I know the mass shooter issue is a complex one that involves a wide range of human rights that many different groups are sensitive to, but there are always ways to help a crisis if we are willing to put the time & effort into finding them.

 

Yes, about six years before. Plus, they needed guns to hunt food & protect themselves if they lived on or near the frontier. But neither of those challenges remain with us today.

 

Well, we have to agree to disagree. Sounds perfect to me.

 

1. Although at times I am reluctant to face it, my life has spanned several decades. In all that time, I never saw average Americans walking around on city streets with guns on them. It never occurred to me I ever would. But now I do, & I wonder what caused this extreme change? America is over 250 years old. That translates into at least 10 successive generations. Those generations have faced many difficult challenges, & always with success. Why am I now witnessing the first generation of any, to conclude they have to be armed wherever they go? Why are they so distrustful of their fellow Americans? No former generation of Americans interpreted the 2nd A as to say they should carry loaded guns in the presence of women & children going about their daily lives on the streets or in the stores. I find that kind of thinking very strange--weird--borderline crazy--well, maybe NOT borderline.
2. Same here. We agree.
3. I like your ideas here, & agree again.
4. Very nice conclusion. I find myself in complete agreement. See. . .as I've often said in this forum, even those with whom we disagree philosophically, we still have more in common as fellow Americans than we have as differences. That offers common ground upon which to build--together. That's the way it's supposed to work.

 

I’ve been heavily armed all my life. I don’t see the problem with everyone else being that way if they want. Having a gun won’t make you any less free. It will just ensure that you can defend yourself if you have to. I don’t see the problem.

 

More likely it will cause the shooter to take more time aiming, resulting in better aimed and more lethal shots. That is why sniper rifles for the most part are still bolt action rifles, so that the shooter is not tempted to keep pulling the trigger, but make each shot lethal. Large magazines and people pulling the trigger as fast as they can result in a whole lot of wasted rounds.

 

The only constant in life, is change. Nothing lasts. Everything is different from one moment to the next. It's the way of life.

 

That’s what I said in another reply, and is why you and your family should be armed.

 

I don't carry, but, I have years of training for violent confrontations and I fear making an error with a firearm more than I fear being killed, but that's my choice, and as an American I can choose to carry if I wish. Many of my friends have conceal carry. The criminal conviction rate committed by CCW is statistically zero, they are among the most highly law-abiding groups in the country.

By all the press and discussion they get, it's clear this is agenda driven, not fact driven.

Take the gangs in Chicago, they own the politicians and the judges, they are a criminal gun using culture with the equivalent of a mass shooting every week and it gets no press. No one is sweeping up all the gun carrying felons that are operating in
Chicago and our other major cities, every moment of every day.

I got the impulse to arm after the LA riots, I watched in shock as the police made a perimeter and left those inside to fend for themselves. Poor Reginald Denny. Thousands rioted for 6 days. 63 people killed, 2383 injured, a billion in arson looting and property damage. But then then the 7th Infantry and the 1st Marine Divisions moved in, and that was the end of that. So, peace was restored and the impulse passed.

So while that is not my choice today, I do know that it is my right and you never know. I have many many friends in law enforcement and it bothers them a great deal just how little preparation most people make toward the fundamental task of personally preparing for violence. They assume that the police will protect them and the police know exactly how often they simply will not be able to get there in time.

They all wish that all of us, would take the time and the steps to personally prepare to survive a violent confrontation, and of course they will do their very best to respond whenever they can.

 

So, the Deed on your house?
Your insurance policies?
These legal documents just change meaning all by themselves without warning?
That's a crock of crap and we both know it.

Our Constitution is OUR Contract between We The People and the government that WE grant the authority to govern. We are free to change it if we wish, and there are two different means of doing so in article 5. But this idea that it "just conveniently changes" to fit the agenda of the Progressives is self-serving nonsense and everyone with a brain knows it.