- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 122,485
- Reaction score
- 19,848
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You struck a nerveHow original. You shoot like a girl
You struck a nerveHow original. You shoot like a girl
When I need advice from a Trumper I call youOh, I know a lot of girls and women that shoot very well. I also admire and respect a number of women.
So thanks for the compliment. And be less misogynistic.
Did you mean to say thumper? What is that?When I need advice from a Trumper I call you
^^ nyuck nyuck nyuckDid you mean to say thumper? What is that?
Strange post you've made more than once. Curious what purpose it serves^^ nyuck nyuck nyuck
—
"A federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a conservative-leaning appeals court ruled Thursday.
The ruling is the latest significant decision dismantling a gun restriction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s expansion of Second Amendment rights last year in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.
“Through that lens, we conclude that (the law’s) ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier’ that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the 5th Circuit said.
Link
Republicans really have it out for women, who they seem to expect to do not much more than bang out babies and not cross their gun weilding husbands.
Yeah, it's all about that.. (shaking head). Step up and take your place on the court. You're wasting your time here.—
"A federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a conservative-leaning appeals court ruled Thursday.
The ruling is the latest significant decision dismantling a gun restriction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s expansion of Second Amendment rights last year in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.
“Through that lens, we conclude that (the law’s) ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier’ that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the 5th Circuit said.
Link
Republicans really have it out for women, who they seem to expect to do not much more than bang out babies and not cross their gun weilding husbands.
Holy cow
You claim a risk factor dependent on an item changes upon a small geographical movement
So prove that. That's your claimDid I?
I said I wouldn't expect a risk factor dependent on possessing an item, to change upon a small geographical movement unless there was some risk factor more significant than the possession of that item.
Would you expect it to change?
It's almost like saying more guns = more homicide, and then we find when you move from an area with relatively few guns to an area of more guns, you can often find the homicide rate goes down.
So prove that. That's your claim
Got it. You can't prove your claimProve that I wouldn't expect that?
Okay...I wouldn't expect that.
Prove that I wouldn't expect that?
Okay...I wouldn't expect that.
Correlation!!!!!!!!!! Lol
Got it. You can't prove your claim
I'll remember that if you want me to prove mine
I accept your concessionYou ever proving a claim is something else I wouldn't expect. Need I prove my expectations there?![]()
Good idea. Everyone who engages in "violent" or "dangerous" behaviour (the definitions of "violent" and "dangerous" being left solely to "The Government") of any nature whatsoever should be incarcerated until such time as they prove that they will never engage in any sort of violent behaviour at any time in the future.You know, that is something that concerns me.
What is wrong with mass incarceration if the criminals who are incarcerated en masse are demonstrably violent, dangerous people?
Now that is simply NOT TRUE!!Not much has changed judging by the ruling of guys who sit on the 5th Circuit Court.
Conservatives don't give a shit about women.
You appear to be forgetting the fact that the world consists of [1] The United States of America, and [2] a bunch of shithole third-world so-called "countries" none of which are civilized.Because in all civilized societies around the world today Grandma does not have to carry an AR15 to the grocery store to feel safe.
Indeed, every country in the world has a "gun culture". In some of those cultures, guns are considered to be existentially important and in others they are considered sort of nice things to have if you like to have those sort of things.I have no problem removing violent criminals for a time or indefinitely if that's the response their actions require.
Looking at global data, it probably does; however, I would never argue that one variable can have a total impact on violent crime. There's a cultural component of violent crime. Violent crime data can tell us a lot about how conflict tends to be resolved in society. America has courts of law, and it also has courts of the street. In a court of law, judges and juries decide the punishment, but the instruments of justice are the prisons. In street court, individuals decide what justice is, and the instrument of justice is their weapon of choice. America's not the only developed nation with a gun culture. Australia has a gun culture. Canada has one. Switzerland. Israel.
Not necessarily. It could also be because they don't consider that the possession and carriage of guns is the sine qua non of personal worth.None of them have the problems on the scale that we do. We are wealthier than they are and they generally have considerably less gun-related violence, and that's because they have a quarter to a third the guns per capita we do. Moreover, they have more robust systems of regulation.
Incarceration, alone, hasn't proven to be a major deterrent to crime. What HAS proven to be a major deterrent to crime is the level of speed and certainty of apprehension and punishment (as well as the level of personal approbation that the criminal receives from their social milieu).Most research doesn't attribute the decline in crime to mass incarceration alone, and some studies suggest it's of no value at all.
The recidivism rate (two years post original release) in Canada is 35% and the recidivism rate (two years post original release) in the US is 60%.I try to keep an open mind and not follow the herd. I am guessing that mass incarceration probably had some impact on recidivism; however, there are other factors, such as an aging population, fewer unwanted children in the post Roe v Wade era, and periods of advancement into the middle class by historically disadvantaged groups.
Sometimes the realistically available choices do NOT include "Becoming the CEO of a major company and moving to a gated community with armed private security guards on duty 24/752".If you need an AR-15 to defend yourself you gotta examine your life style choices.
TrueAs a society, we are becoming nuts.
Courts are suppose to ponder law and reason to determine what is right.
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States of America that gives anyone the "right to live" nor the right to "feel safe in their homes" (with the exception that they do have a right to "feel safe in their homes" vis a vis "The Government").They are suppose to weigh one person's right, in this case to bear arm's; with another person's right to live and feel safe in their homes.
Some do, some don't. Some expect that the judges will rule so as to perpetuate power.We expect our justices to rule with wisdom knowing the conflicting interests of the many individuals in light of the overall interest of the many (our society).
Some do, some don't. Some expect that the judges will use their knowledge of the law, their command of logic, and their sense of duty to find a way to ensure the perpetuation of power.We expect them to find justice through their knowledge of the law, their command of logic and their sense of decency.
There is nothing "unreasonable" about finding a way to perpetuate power. Those who do have the power have been doing just that for centuries.It seems they came up short here as the verdict seems unreasonable, defying logic, decency and justice.
Many will dispute that statement - especially if the matter concerns them personally.There is no absolute right -- 2nd amendment or any other.
"Reasonable" to some people means "applies to others only".All rights have reasonable limits.
They just have a different opinion as to what "reasonable" is and will sue your butt off if you attempt to restrict their constitutional right (see "First Amendment Rights") to uphold that opinion.It seems they don't find reasonable to be reasonable.
Indeed, every country in the world has a "gun culture". In some of those cultures, guns are considered to be existentially important and in others they are considered sort of nice things to have if you like to have those sort of things.
Not necessarily. It could also be because they don't consider that the possession and carriage of guns is the sine qua non of personal worth.
Incarceration, alone, hasn't proven to be a major deterrent to crime. What HAS proven to be a major deterrent to crime is the level of speed and certainty of apprehension and punishment (as well as the level of personal approbation that the criminal receives from their social milieu).
The typical criminal is not thinking "If I do 'X' then I am going to jail for 'Y'.". Rather, they are thinking "They'll never catch me if I do 'X', and even if they do they won't indict me, and even if they do they won't put me on trial, and even if they do they won't convict me, and even if they do I'll win my appeal, and even if I don't they won't keep me in jail for very long."
The recidivism rate (two years post original release) in Canada is 35% and the recidivism rate (two years post original release) in the US is 60%.
The incarceration rate in Canada is 104/100,000 and the incarceration rate in the US is 629/100,000.
If your theory were to hold water then Canada's recidivism rate really should be higher than that of the US, it isn't.
On the other hand, there is always the possibility that Canada produces smarter criminals than the US, so they "learn their lesson" from their original incarceration and don't get caught again (as much).