• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

army vet denied right to own gun due to ...

This thread goes to show the retardation we treat the protectors of the nation with. You are 18, you can vote, you can carry a rifle into combat, handle classified information, but you can't get a beer in your hometown while on leave.

Oh, you can also protect this country with a rifle or handgun, but you aren't like the rest of the citizens. You got caught doing something stupid when you were young, and now you can't own a personal weapon. But you can have this military grade one and go fight!

:mrgreen: Consider Blacks in the Army during WW2, fighting and dying for their Country. When movie time came, German prisoners of war sat in front of them.
 
That doesn't explain why you don't have the first clue as to what it is you're so adamantly preaching against. I don't live in Norway either and yet, I understand how their system works. I guess that's only a privilege of us edumacated libruls.

Now, to address the infinite ignorance you have displayed in that 1 post:

1. His "sentence" is not dictated by the number of years he actually got.
2. He's not going to get all the other benefits average inmates get.
3. Even with psychological rehabilitation, he will not be released.

My response about general prison conditions was in response to LMR's questions about fixing the system in general. Which if Norway is anything to go by, works better than our own by a margin of 3. The average inmate is not a killer. He's not a rapist. Most are in for relatively petty crimes. Norway has figured out a way to rehabilitate those inmates and make them part of society. At the very least it has managed to make sure they don't reoffend. That is what is in question here. How to not get inmates to reoffend. Now, if you wanna go on a diatribe about the 1 guy who will NEVER get released, by all means. Nobody with more than a half brain is listening to you.

However, please, please, PLEASE - keep talking. I want to destroy more of your weak sauce arguments.

:mrgreen: That would certainly be a good criteria to judge how well a prison system is working: How many reoffenders they have. Kinda like Golf, the lower the score, the better.
 
Keep dreaming.

Good job in derailing yet another thread. Why do you hate service members so much?

:mrgreen: Arbo! I missed something here! Where does Hatuey reveal that he hates Service members?
 
:mrgreen: Someone please explain to me what it means to "Go Postal". Sorry to seem naïve.

Some time back in the early 1980's, I think, there was a well-publicized incident in which a postal worker went nuts, brought a gun to work, and shot several of his co-workers.

After that, there was a rash of similar incidents, and some discussion about whether postal workers were being subjected to unusually bad working conditions, and whether these conditions might be leading to an unusual number of them snapping and turning violent.

About the same time this began, the USPS had come out with the advertising slogan “Go Postal!” to encourage customers to use the USPS to ship packages, rather than private-sector companies like UPS or Federal Express. The slogan ended up turning into a cliché about disgruntled postal workers turning violent.

I guess we're getting, now, to the point where everyone knows that to “go postal” means to snap and turn violent, but many no longer remember the incidents that led to this.
 
Last edited:
:mrgreen: Someone please explain to me what it means to "Go Postal". Sorry to seem naïve.

Sure. Postal or going postal, refers to a series of shootings in the 90's at or near,yep you guessed it, the post office. They had the post office in common, either one of the postal workers wacking his fellow workers or a shootout at the post office or one of their facilities. There was a couple of very violent video games based on the theme. Anywho, since postal workers seemed to be the primary shooters, people took calling the actions or those similar, where as somebody goes into a place were they worked and shoot it up, as "going postal". Hope this helps.
 
Some time back in the early 1980's, I think, there was a well-publicized incident in which a postal worker went nuts, brought a gun to work, and shot several of his co-workers.

After that, there was a rash of similar incidents, and some discussion about whether postal workers were being subjected to unusually bad working conditions, and whether these conditions might be leading to an unusual number of them snapping and turning violent.

About the same time this began, the USPS had come out with the advertising slogan “Go Postal!” to encourage customers to use the USPS to ship packages, rather than private-sector companies like UPS or Federal Express. The slogan ended up turning into a cliché about disgruntled postal workers turning violent.

I guess we're getting, now, to the point where everyone knows that to “go postal” means to snap and turn violent, but many no longer remember the incidents that led to this.

:mrgreen: That's what I thought it might be, but I wasn't sure. Bye the way, I worked for the Post Office back in the sixties (oops! I'm revealing my age), and we had a lot of disgruntled people but no one who would open fire on people for no reason (did I say no one? I can't know that but no recorded incidents). Thanks, Bob
 
Sure. Postal or going postal, refers to a series of shootings in the 90's at or near,yep you guessed it, the post office. They had the post office in common, either one of the postal workers wacking his fellow workers or a shootout at the post office or one of their facilities. There was a couple of very violent video games based on the theme. Anywho, since postal workers seemed to be the primary shooters, people took calling the actions or those similar, where as somebody goes into a place were they worked and shoot it up, as "going postal". Hope this helps.

:mrgreen: yeah! It helps, even though I'm a former Postal worker in Livermore CA.
 
:mrgreen: Are earrings allowed on guys yet? 'Cus when I was in the Navy as soon as liberty time came and you stepped off the boat, on went the earring(s).

I don't remember the policy on ear rings. I am sure they aren't allowed while on duty, but I am sure when you are off duty they would be fine. Just a guess.
 
Hey look, you're making up strawman arguments. I almost thought you'd have a concise and powerful argument to make for once.

It's tough when you put every felon on the same level as this guy. I mean come on, you don't really believe the comparison do you?
 
It's tough when you put every felon on the same level as this guy. I mean come on, you don't really believe the comparison do you?

There was no comparison. I simply suggested, to the agreement of most people - that it's a sign of a broken system. The 70s sucked. We have baby boomers to thank for that. They wanted to be tough on crime and now that the 70s and 80s are gone, they're seeing the fallout.
 
:mrgreen: Not to mention, they don't leave shell casings.

It's really all about commonality. If you go looking for an illegal gun on the streets, chances are it's going to be an old junker that's seen better days, and chances are it's going to be a pistol that was in very wide circulation. Look back 30 years ago, before the 380's, pocket nines, and baby 45's were a big deal, and you have the 38 snub. Smith and Wesson made hundreds of millions of those 38 snubs, and still do. When police started dumping their revolvers for semiautomatics, they were dumping their pistols into the civilian market as surplus for around 100-200 bucks a piece (back when the economy was worth a damn). The market was saturated with cheap 38's, so them being the most popular firearm of criminals isn't far fetched at all.
 
These are the rules that people like, otherwise they would stop electing "tough on crime" politicians.
 
It's really all about commonality. If you go looking for an illegal gun on the streets, chances are it's going to be an old junker that's seen better days, and chances are it's going to be a pistol that was in very wide circulation. Look back 30 years ago, before the 380's, pocket nines, and baby 45's were a big deal, and you have the 38 snub. Smith and Wesson made hundreds of millions of those 38 snubs, and still do. When police started dumping their revolvers for semiautomatics, they were dumping their pistols into the civilian market as surplus for around 100-200 bucks a piece (back when the economy was worth a damn). The market was saturated with cheap 38's, so them being the most popular firearm of criminals isn't far fetched at all.

:mrgreen: You know your gun history!
 
I don't remember the policy on ear rings. I am sure they aren't allowed while on duty, but I am sure when you are off duty they would be fine. Just a guess.

:mrgreen: When I was in earrings weren't allowed even on liberty, in civilian clothes, so things might be changing.
 
As predicted, you continue on with the yawn fest.

Have you ever, btw, actually commented on the subject of the thread?

:mrgreen: I commented on it in post #28.
 
I have no problem with any of that. My only concern is keeping people who are truly dangerous to innocent people out of the general public with appropriate sentences. I could care less about drug offenders and petty criminals, non-violent felons, and other non threatening individuals being released early with full rights.

One of the issues seems to be that some people are imprisoned for drug possession with intent to distribute. The justice system doesn't care if they're just big pot heads who smoke a lot. They'll go to prison. We send the homeless to prison for shop lifting food. We house pretty much anybody who moves a foot in the wrong direction. So after a while, there's little to no choice but to let some guys out and "dangerous" criminals get sent out before everyone else. Why? My opinion is that they're the most likely to cause the corporate systems the PR nightmares we hear about every few weeks.

So as I see it, there are strings being pulled to keep the bad ones out. There are strings being pulled to keep the small time criminals in. Finally, there are string being pulled to make sure that don't change. So in essence we have a system that works similar to a credit card company. Like a credit card company, some of these prisons aren't interested in big time offenders who are never going to leave. They're interested in the little guy who, due to life in prison, keeps walking in and out.

This case is just another sign of a system twisted by profit. Instead of a system that seeks to ensure people don't come in a second time. We have a system that ensures they do.
 
One of the issues seems to be that some people are imprisoned for drug possession with intent to distribute. The justice system doesn't care if they're just big pot heads who smoke a lot. They'll go to prison. We send the homeless to prison for shop lifting food. We house pretty much anybody who moves a foot in the wrong direction. So after a while, there's little to no choice but to let some guys out and "dangerous" criminals get sent out before everyone else. Why? My opinion is that they're the most likely to cause the corporate systems the PR nightmares we hear about every few weeks.
Have a high school friend who lucked out on the intent to distribute charge back then, he was a big pot head and actually convince the cop of such, but he was a gram over or something like that and was looking at a felony, he was charged down. I think there are some circumstances where a person should not be charge heavily for committing a non-violent crime, such as desperation for food.
So as I see it, there are strings being pulled to keep the bad ones out. There are strings being pulled to keep the small time criminals in. Finally, there are string being pulled to make sure that don't change. So in essence we have a system that works similar to a credit card company. Like a credit card company, some of these prisons aren't interested in big time offenders who are never going to leave. They're interested in the little guy who, due to life in prison, keeps walking in and out.

This case is just another sign of a system twisted by profit. Instead of a system that seeks to ensure people don't come in a second time. We have a system that ensures they do.
No argument here, and my only concern is protecting the public, lots of crimes have no real victim and are simply on the books because of someone's opinion or it had an under handed benefit to someone's pockets. Laws like that do not help us, and worse, as we've agreed, stress the prison system so much that some real dangers are allowed back on the streets early.
 
I agree this is unfair, but I think it's more unfair that a person with a drug misdemeanor in their past can't get a decent job. In both cases, the person should be able to have that record expunged after a fairly short period of time and good behaviour.
 
Is that the law in Texas? A minor drug charge? I bet there is more to this story. I dont believe violent felons should ever be allowed to own a firearm, but someone with a minor drug thing should.
 
It's really all about commonality. If you go looking for an illegal gun on the streets, chances are it's going to be an old junker that's seen better days, and chances are it's going to be a pistol that was in very wide circulation. Look back 30 years ago, before the 380's, pocket nines, and baby 45's were a big deal, and you have the 38 snub. Smith and Wesson made hundreds of millions of those 38 snubs, and still do. When police started dumping their revolvers for semiautomatics, they were dumping their pistols into the civilian market as surplus for around 100-200 bucks a piece (back when the economy was worth a damn). The market was saturated with cheap 38's, so them being the most popular firearm of criminals isn't far fetched at all.
Like I have been saying, the "more advanced" firearms that make some of these anti-gunners **** their pants aren't all that widely used for crimes because they are too expensive to dump. It's going to be a surplus .38 revolver a.k.a. the Saturday Night Specials, or it's going to be a cheap(not low priced) brand like Hi-Point or some other piece of **** that can be thrown after a murder. Usually if a quality weapon is used it's going to either be a heat of passion action or stolen.
 
Like I have been saying, the "more advanced" firearms that make some of these anti-gunners **** their pants aren't all that widely used for crimes because they are too expensive to dump. It's going to be a surplus .38 revolver a.k.a. the Saturday Night Specials, or it's going to be a cheap(not low priced) brand like Hi-Point or some other piece of **** that can be thrown after a murder. Usually if a quality weapon is used it's going to either be a heat of passion action or stolen.
That, and you have to submit to a background check to get one unless you can find a sucker willing to risk their freedom and clean slate to hook you up. Plus, nobody except the more well to do drug distributors are going to have brand new quality arms. Those are mostly for show and intimidation, though. Nobody in their right mind is going to commit a crime with a brand new FN rifle.
 
Is that the law in Texas? A minor drug charge? I bet there is more to this story. I dont believe violent felons should ever be allowed to own a firearm, but someone with a minor drug thing should.

No. I have a midemeanor marijuana charge in Harris County, and I have no problem buying firearms.
 
That, and you have to submit to a background check to get one unless you can find a sucker willing to risk their freedom and clean slate to hook you up. Plus, nobody except the more well to do drug distributors are going to have brand new quality arms. Those are mostly for show and intimidation, though. Nobody in their right mind is going to commit a crime with a brand new FN rifle.
Exactly right. Criminals may be a lot of things, but they can still rationalize the monetary tradeoff of using a particular weapon to what their "profit" from the crime will be, it makes no sense to hold up a gas station for 400 to throw away a 500$ piece, even more so for a gang murder, there is no money in the killing itself, so throwing an expensive gun is a total loss.
 
One of the issues seems to be that some people are imprisoned for drug possession with intent to distribute. The justice system doesn't care if they're just big pot heads who smoke a lot. They'll go to prison. We send the homeless to prison for shop lifting food. We house pretty much anybody who moves a foot in the wrong direction. So after a while, there's little to no choice but to let some guys out and "dangerous" criminals get sent out before everyone else. Why? My opinion is that they're the most likely to cause the corporate systems the PR nightmares we hear about every few weeks.

So as I see it, there are strings being pulled to keep the bad ones out. There are strings being pulled to keep the small time criminals in. Finally, there are string being pulled to make sure that don't change. So in essence we have a system that works similar to a credit card company. Like a credit card company, some of these prisons aren't interested in big time offenders who are never going to leave. They're interested in the little guy who, due to life in prison, keeps walking in and out.

This case is just another sign of a system twisted by profit. Instead of a system that seeks to ensure people don't come in a second time. We have a system that ensures they do.

:mrgreen: So what can we do about it? I've read your comments on the Norwegian system. How do we get rid of corporate prisons, who profit on crime because, now, criminals are an asset, a 'commodity', so to speak and get back to punishing REAL criminals for REAL crimes, while sentencing a drug user to community service along with drug rehab? But the answer is apparent! We, the People, bug our Senators and Representatives until they act like the "Framers" intended--- Do the will of the People!
 
Back
Top Bottom