Back in a minute.
I absolutely believe in a speedy trial. It's essential to due process. But that's not our difference. Neither is or was the nature of man.Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil... Ecclesiastes 8:10-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:10-13&version=NKJV
That was our difference. Well, one of them. Your misapprehension of an objective truth regarding the efficacy of law in relation to gun violence was the larger dispute.And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. Ezra 7:26
First of all you need to set out the scripture in particular. I did. I'm not going to read until I get to what you believe makes your point, wherever it is in that.First of all: This is a copy of the letter that King Artaxerxes gave Ezra the priest, the scribe, expert in the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of His statutes to Israel: - Ezra 7:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra7:11&version=NKJV
I didn't say that the Mosaic law did. I noted scripture laying out punishments of a king and those included imprisonment.Second: The entire Mosaic law NEVER says to imprison a criminal as punishment ...
No. Running out of argument against the argument this soon? That's what usually precedes the messenger shtick. In the meantime, try to support the charge. I'll wait.Trying to move the goalposts?
Gun control is about more than criminal activity. My particular focus for a while now has been aimed at lessening gun violence, which is almost always criminal, and mass murders, also criminal. But gun control laws can also help us avoid accidents through requirements of training and certification and by taking out of circulation guns which, when handled improperly, are much more likely to do greater damage.The goal is to reduce crime.
I've never advocated for inappropriate punishments for criminal activity. Who does? I mean, besides criminals.You do that by having appropriate punishments for crimes
People really aren't and a gun is a cheap, easy way to kill a great many people in short order, depending on the type. The types that make most of horrific mass murders we've seen on campuses and in churches and at concerts could be profoundly impacted by the passage of laws found in every other Western Democracy.which deters criminals from committing the crimes in the first place, rather than trying to stop criminals when they've already set their hearts to do it, which doesn't work, because people are infinitely resourceful.
And you're wrong every time you say or write it. Empirically, objectively, demonstrably wrong.Like I just said, and as I have said elsewhere, making it so that a person "can't" commit a crime is ineffective,
You didn't even try to make the first case, so saying AGAIN doesn't really say anything.AGAIN, moving the goalposts doesn't help your position.
And those are pretty serious symptoms in need of addressing. Sometimes that's a great idea, which is why we take NyQuil, essentially a drug that addresses symptoms so that we can rest and let our body do the real work with less stress upon it. Maybe with fewer elementary schools being shot to pieces we can do a better job of deliberate, calm introspection and fill the public square with considered wisdom.Gun laws only address the symptoms of a larger problem.
We have the best criminal justice system in the world, but it's largely overburdened. Partly by drug related prosecutions and sentence structures and partly by the violent acts of people with access to some pretty serious firepower.Address the justice system as a whole, which is the real failure, and the symptoms will go away naturally.
Way ahead of you...Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
Rom. 5:6-8
Then I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of holiness, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done. This also is vanity.Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.Though a sinner does evil a hundred times, and his days are prolonged, yet I surely know that it will be well with those who fear God, who fear before Him.But it will not be well with the wicked; nor will he prolong his days, which are as a shadow, because he does not fear before God. - Ecclesiastes 8:10-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:10-13&version=NKJV
First of all:
This is a copy of the letter that King Artaxerxes gave Ezra the priest, the scribe, expert in the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of His statutes to Israel: - Ezra 7:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra7:11&version=NKJV
Second:
The entire Mosaic law NEVER says to imprison a criminal as punishment for their crime, for any of the crimes listed.
Prison was ONLY to be used to hold a criminal until a sentence could be passed, and the punishment was always retribution, flogging or other physical punishment, or death.
Trying to move the goalposts?
The goal is to reduce crime. You do that by having appropriate punishments for crimes, which deters criminals from committing the crimes in the first place, rather than trying to stop criminals when they've already set their hearts to do it, which doesn't work, because people are infinitely resourceful.
No, it's not. If you haven't noticed, I'm the one saying we need stronger punishments for crime. How you get "we shouldn't have law" out of that is beyond me.
Like I just said, and as I have said elsewhere, making it so that a person "can't" commit a crime is ineffective, because people are infinitely resourceful, and will figure out workarounds. That's why you make it so that people WON'T commit crime.
AGAIN, moving the goalposts doesn't help your position.
Gun laws only address the symptoms of a larger problem. Address the justice system as a whole, which is the real failure, and the symptoms will go away naturally.
And again, not a point of disagreement here. I don't know anyone advocating a slow trial process, but when I see it I'll let you and Judge be the first to know and join me in a big "Hoo-ha!" lain:Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
Rom. 5:6-8
And again, not a point of disagreement here. I don't know anyone advocating a slow trial process, but when I see it I'll let you and Judge be the first to know and join me in a big "Hoo-ha!" lain:
Rightly has apparently taken the reposting the last thing I answered in lieu of responding.
Why is anyone's guess.
You reposted everything that had been met with rebuttal, not just the verse.Perhaps it's that I was showing Danoh that I had already brought up that verse, which was the only thing he had posted.
So what?You reposted everything that had been met with rebuttal, not just the verse.
Given the nature of governments prior and our own principle reason for revolution I'm sure the consideration must have been infused in the understanding/thinking of the Founders. More, as I wrote to another poster here, a large part of the nation used firearms for everything from procuring a livelihood to feeding family. Weapons were an indispensable fact of life. But among considerations I believe the most pragmatic and self-interested one took precedence in raising a public army for the common defense. Once you had that in place the rest and any other consideration was superfluous.I will weigh in on this frequent topic although I do so with much circumspection.
I tend to see the appeals to the right to bear arms in this day and age revolving around the amendment as a defense against our government becoming Gilead (HT: Handmaiden's Tale) or perhaps even more dire (HT: The Man in the Castle). I readily grant that these sort of metaphors (less anachronistically so) related to the issue were fresh in the mind's of the founders.
I'm about to go to lunch with family, but I'd like to unpack some of that later. Solid questions.It seems the arguments for a living document (Bork, Marshall) or a legal document (Scalia) with respect to the Constitution underlie virtually all the arguments revolving around the Second Amendment.
- Which of these views of the Constitution holds the greater weight in these arguments?
- Is every man a militia member?
- Were the "arms" in the minds of the authors in 1791 the "arms" now accessible to the everyman today?
- Where does the regulation of "arms" bump up against the right to bear said "arms"?
In light of our standing army and the consequences of possession and ready access among the citizenry constituting what I believe is a clear and present danger I'd agree. Or, I think they meant for us to possess the weapons of a sort of warfare, the sort we waged for independence. I believe that we have standards relating to posed dangers of particular expressions of right that are meant to check the inherent dangers of unforseen consequences. I believe we are experiencing those unforseen consequences presently.No hidden agenda is at work here. I have an opinion on the topic and have no problem making it clear:I do not see how the possession by just anyone of "arms" that are distinctly rapid fire in support of mass killings (of any living thing) in very short time periods something that should be made available to "the people to keep and bear", when "people" means folks like ordinary citizens like myself.
No, not every man was a member of the militia of their particular State when the Second Amendment was written.- Is every man a militia member?
According to the Constitution, the Militia was to be used for suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions.- Were the "arms" in the minds of the authors in 1791 the "arms" now accessible to the everyman today?
Congress is supposed to regulate the Militia, including determining how the Militia will be armed (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16) and Congress is also restricted from infringing upon the right to bear the "arms" necessary to form a well regulated Militia (Second Amendment).- Where does the regulation of "arms" bump up against the right to bear said "arms"?
Ordinary citizens like yourself would be too old to be in the Militia. :chuckle:No hidden agenda is at work here. I have an opinion on the topic and have no problem making it clear:
I do not see how the possession by just anyone of "arms" that are distinctly rapid fire in support of mass killings (of any living thing) in very short time periods something that should be made available to "the people to keep and bear", when "people" means folks like ordinary citizens like myself.
You have a duty to obey the law. You have the right to live as you please within it....For the ordinary citizens that would be eligible for the Militia, most of the ones living today believe in rights and reject duties.
At the time the Constitution was written, everyone eligible for the Militia was presumed to have the duty to be a part of the Militia in order to protect the freedoms of all the citizens of the United States.
Nobody that rejects the duties that come from being a citizen of the United States should have the rights that come with that citizenship.
The writers of the Constitution were well aware of other countries that had standing armies, such as Great Britain. They chose to vest the duty to protect the newly independent States in the common citizen instead of in a standing army controlled by the government. This was the right choice.You have a duty to obey the law. You have the right to live as you please within it.
The militia is done now. We have a standing army, a thing we lacked when the Founders wrote it and the protection of weapons both necessary to preserve the peace and essential to a nation's livelihood into existence.
The main reason to prevent the common people from owning military grade weapons is to prevent them from rising up against a tyrannical government. It is not in the nation's interest to restrict weapons, it is in the government's interest. The United States of America was founded as a Federation of States with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is not what we now have, so this government that is no longer of the people, by the people, and for the people must act against the people by infringing on the right to bear arms along with all other rights that a free people have that threaten a tyrannical government.The original reasoning and the changing nature of the carnage modern weapons bring with them should have any reasonable person reconsidering the line of what is and isn't within the nation's interest when it comes to gun laws.
It was the only choice they had at the time, being more a loose confederation than the entity we have today, especially since the Civil War. But that reality is a historical footnote, as we have a stronger union and a standing armed forces.The writers of the Constitution were well aware of other countries that had standing armies, such as Great Britain. They chose to vest the duty to protect the newly independent States in the common citizen instead of in a standing army controlled by the government. This was the right choice.
That's just complete nonsense, gen. The main reason to keep machine guns out of easy reach of anyone with enough scratch is the tendency of enough untethered people to gain that access.The main reason to prevent the common people from owning military grade weapons is to prevent them from rising up against a tyrannical government.
Said no one attending the Las Vegas concert, or whose children attended Sandy Hook, and on and on.It is not in the nation's interest to restrict weapons, it is in the government's interest.
Sure. And a lot of great ideas went into that founding, along with a few pragmatic concessions and hypocritical blind eyes being turned. Hopefully, we'll continue to do service to the spirit of the best of that vision and get rid of deadwood that restrains us, as slavery and the sad legal rights of women did once. As abortion does today, in my opinion. Gun laws are overdue for serious and substantive address.The United States of America was founded as a Federation of States with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough laws controlling guns, it's that the punishments for crimes are not appropriate for the crimes committed. Period. And no, I'm not just talking about punishments for gun crimes. I'm talking about punishments for all crimes.
The Bible says that if you punish criminals swiftly and painfully, then there will not be a crime epidemic.
Prison was prohibited by God
to use as punishment, and everywhere in the Bible where it describes a nation using prison as a form of punishment, it's always a wicked nation.
Execution, flogging, and restitution are the only three forms of punishment God authorized for punishing criminals.
If America (or any nation) were to return to Biblical standards of criminal justice, there would, overnight, be an almost 100% drop in crime.
As far as gun control is concerned, addressing a symptom of a larger issue does no good. In order to get rid of the problem and the resulting symptoms, one must address the problem.
The problem concerning gun control is the criminal court/"justice" system (and I put justice in quotes because it's not really a justice system, it's "just a system") and law in general.
When a nation has bad laws, then they also have bad government, and high crime, and the law is in turn used by the criminals against the innocent.
Correct the law (by returning to the Biblical standard for morality), and you eliminate the symptoms along with the problem.
What verses do you have in mind?
26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.Ezra 7:26
Given how often Israel and its kings failed the law and God I doubt that would be the case. If you want peace and justice you won't find anything like perfection of them here.
And that's like saying that until we conquer evil we shouldn't have law. Rather, knowing the heart of men we should make it harder for that heart to find its worst expression.
Gun laws work. Waiting on the perfection of men will not.
Then I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of holiness, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done. This also is vanity.Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.Though a sinner does evil a hundred times, and his days are prolonged, yet I surely know that it will be well with those who fear God, who fear before Him.But it will not be well with the wicked; nor will he prolong his days, which are as a shadow, because he does not fear before God. - Ecclesiastes 8:10-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:10-13&version=NKJV
First of all:
This is a copy of the letter that King Artaxerxes gave Ezra the priest, the scribe, expert in the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of His statutes to Israel: - Ezra 7:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra7:11&version=NKJV
Second:
The entire Mosaic law NEVER says to imprison a criminal as punishment for their crime, for any of the crimes listed.
Prison was ONLY to be used to hold a criminal until a sentence could be passed, and the punishment was always retribution, flogging or other physical punishment, or death.
Trying to move the goalposts?
The goal is to reduce crime. You do that by having appropriate punishments for crimes, which deters criminals from committing the crimes in the first place, rather than trying to stop criminals when they've already set their hearts to do it, which doesn't work, because people are infinitely resourceful.
No, it's not. If you haven't noticed, I'm the one saying we need stronger punishments for crime. How you get "we shouldn't have law" out of that is beyond me.
Like I just said, and as I have said elsewhere, making it so that a person "can't" commit a crime is ineffective, because people are infinitely resourceful, and will figure out workarounds. That's why you make it so that people WON'T commit crime.
AGAIN, moving the goalposts doesn't help your position.
Gun laws only address the symptoms of a larger problem. Address the justice system as a whole, which is the real failure, and the symptoms will go away naturally.
To address your post further, I recommend you watch this.
https://youtu.be/F6XTVuUP0Ho
And watch it all the way through, he addresses your attempt to move the goalposts.
I absolutely believe in a speedy trial. It's essential to due process.
But that's not our difference. Neither is or was the nature of man.
So here you note my quote, again:
That was our difference.
And God spoke all these words, saying: 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of [a]bondage. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting[c] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. 7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. 13 “You shall not murder. 14 “You shall not commit adultery. 15 “You shall not steal. 16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” |
Well, one of them. Your misapprehension of an objective truth regarding the efficacy of law in relation to gun violence was the larger dispute.
First of all you need to set out the scripture in particular. I did. I'm not going to read until I get to what you believe makes your point, wherever it is in that.
That's your job.
I didn't say that the Mosaic law did.
I noted scripture laying out punishments of a king and those included imprisonment.
No. Running out of argument against the argument this soon? That's what usually precedes the messenger shtick. In the meantime, try to support the charge. I'll wait.
Gun control is about more than criminal activity. My particular focus for a while now has been aimed at lessening gun violence,
which is almost always criminal,
and mass murders, also criminal. But gun control laws can also help us avoid accidents through requirements of training and certification and by taking out of circulation guns which, when handled improperly, are much more likely to do greater damage.
I've never advocated for inappropriate punishments for criminal activity. Who does? I mean, besides criminals.
People really aren't
and a gun is a cheap, easy way to kill a great many people in short order, depending on the type.
The types that make most of horrific mass murders we've seen on campuses and in churches and at concerts could be profoundly impacted by the passage of laws
found in every other Western Democracy.
And you're wrong every time you say or write it. Empirically, objectively, demonstrably wrong.
Every other Western Industrial Democracy is a testament to it. Many have the same sorts of criminal justice systems and legal structures. They also have any number of intelligent restrictions on the type of weapons a person can have and what they must demonstrate to do so. And they have dramatically fewer deaths by firearm and lower levels of gun violence, which is the actual point of gun control.
You didn't even try to make the first case, so saying AGAIN doesn't really say anything.
And those are pretty serious symptoms in need of addressing.
Sometimes that's a great idea, which is why we take NyQuil, essentially a drug that addresses symptoms so that we can rest and let our body do the real work with less stress upon it. Maybe with fewer elementary schools being shot to pieces we can do a better job of deliberate, calm introspection and fill the public square with considered wisdom.
We have the best criminal justice system in the world,
but it's largely overburdened.
Partly by drug related prosecutions and sentence structures and partly by the violent acts of people with access to some pretty serious firepower.
We have before us two propositions. The first is that we should address the system of justice and make alterations to it.
It seems that your notions will be fairly fundamental and profound ones, unless I misread your nods to how things were done in the OT.
You'll have to flesh that out.
If so it's just not likely to happen. It hasn't in the history of our nation.
If that's the case then it won't exactly be a blueprint for impacting the problem of gun violence, though it could make for spirited discussion on forum boards.
The second proposition is that we pass a few laws that, modeled numerous times outside our country, have significantly impacted gun violence and mass shootings. Many of the countries doing a profoundly better job of safeguarding their citizens have inferior or similar systems to begin with. But they have smarter gun laws.
On YouTube videos, as a rule I don't worry with them. If I want to have an argument with someone else I'll have it with them and in a position where they can answer and respond. If you think there's a point in any source make it and if the point seems interesting enough I'll have a look at the material. Otherwise it's just an invitation for me to spend time on something I'll as likely end up breaking into parts in difference.
On repeating unsupported charges, like moving goalposts, it's only a flag without a country until you establish the borders.
Given the nature of governments prior and our own principle reason for revolution I'm sure the consideration must have been infused in the understanding/thinking of the Founders.
More, as I wrote to another poster here, a large part of the nation used firearms for everything from procuring a livelihood to feeding family. Weapons were an indispensable fact of life. But among considerations I believe the most pragmatic and self-interested one took precedence in raising a public army for the common defense. Once you had that in place the rest and any other consideration was superfluous.
I'm about to go to lunch with family, but I'd like to unpack some of that later. Solid questions.
In light of our standing army and the consequences of possession and ready access among the citizenry constituting what I believe is a clear and present danger I'd agree. Or, I think they meant for us to possess the weapons of a sort of warfare, the sort we waged for independence. I believe that we have standards relating to posed dangers of particular expressions of right that are meant to check the inherent dangers of unforseen consequences. I believe we are experiencing those unforseen consequences presently.
You have a duty to obey the law.
You have the right to live as you please within it.
The militia is done now. We have a standing army, a thing we lacked when the Founders wrote it and the protection of weapons both necessary to preserve the peace and essential to a nation's livelihood into existence. Any number of founding thoughts have required our attention and alteration over the course of time, from slavery to the place of women within the legal framework. The original reasoning and the changing nature of the carnage modern weapons bring with them should have any reasonable person reconsidering the line of what is and isn't within the nation's interest when it comes to gun laws.
Heard an advertisement today for a candidate for office. One of the things said by the spokesman caught my particular attention. He said, "X is pro-life and pro-NRA!"
I no longer believe those two statements are compatible.
A thing the law never remotely approached. Israel couldn't keep its kings from running amok often enough....this is what the goal should be, to reduce crime to the point where it's for all intents and purposes nonexistent.
No system in the history of man has, can, or will make itself unnecessary.The proper goal of a justice system is to render itself unnecessary. The system we have today does not have that goal, nor does it render itself unnecessary.
I don't only say it, I can and have told you why. I'll do it again in a moment.You say in one of your posts (which, iirc, I have quoted here) that we have the best justice system in the world. We don't.
If we judged the greatness of painting by how much paint was used we'd have very different museums too.If we were to judge the quality of all justice systems by the amount of crime that exists in the nation the system belongs to, we have possibly the absolute worst system possible.
By that reason we should erase the law altogether and men, free of its inducement, will live more saintly lives. Come now.Making it harder to sin just means that the criminals will try harder to sin.
Rather, the law restrains those who can be restrained by conscience and convention, makes commission more unlikely for those who fail in that but have sufficient self-interest to promote lawful dealings given the nature of consequence, and can through imposition, as with laws forbidding certain guns, make particular criminal acts greatly less likely. And that's demonstrable, not hypothetical.The answer IS NOT "how do we make it so that people can't commit crime," it's "how do we make it so that people WON'T commit crime."
Full dockets don't mean a lack of speedy trials. They can, in fact, produce and evidence them. And the totality of those cases represent a sliver, not the rule. Meaning that most cases aren't saddled with this problem at all. But you have to be conversant in the system and the related facts to know it. In your position and the position of most laymen you're very much like the blind man grasping an elephant's tail and declaring it a snake. You don't mean to miss the point, mostly, but you can't help it absent a broader perspective.Yet here in America, we DON'T have a speedy trial. You go to any court in any city, and I guarantee you will be there a few hours, if not told to come back some other time. The dockets are full, especially in bigger cities. There's too much crime, and our system (or lack thereof) can't handle it. It's grossly inefficient.
Just a quick note. Restitution is a part of the state's action in theft cases. We go further than that and it still doesn't stop people from stealing.Let's just look at the 10 commandments...Do not steal. Punishment: restitution.
No real reason to believe that or illustration of it, though it's worth noting that crime has been on the wane here. We have a problem with guns because they're so capable of wide destruction and so easily obtained. And we can correct that.If a nation has good laws, and appropriate punishments for crime, then there won't be a crime epidemic of ANY kind.
Outside of the nuts, it's mostly gang violence, not attacks on innocent citizens. Here's a link to research by Pew on the substantial drop in violent crime (link) dated January of this year.Nowadays, you look on the news, oh look, there's another mass shooting. It's become common for criminals to shoot people, so much so that many times the shootings don't even make headline news anymore.
"Using the FBI numbers, the violent crime rate fell 48% between 1993 and 2016."Our current system does not punish criminals appropriately, and thus we have a crime epidemic.
For many reasons. It's really a lot like the misunderstanding of legal language. People who don't understand it mistake it for obfuscation when it is, in fact, extraordinarily precise and constructed for clarity among those who practice and judge, as is true for the language of medicine and its practitioners.Why have so many laws?
Easily, which is why the overwhelming majority of Americans, many with not much formal education and none in the law manage it every day of the week.How is anyone supposed to follow so many laws without having plenty of lawyers with you at all times?
I'd explain it so that you couldn't do more than nod agreement, but it would take about three years of your time and you'd have to pay me a small fortune for the effort. In sum, because life is a great deal more complicated, property issues are more complicated, and rights are more particularly enumerated and protected. Why that's right, just, equitable, and necessary would take the additional time and money.Why not simplify the laws, so that EVERYONE knows ALL the laws, and even children could understand them?
The one that prohibits you from legally possessing the gun you used, that bars its entry into commerce and ready availability, legally.Let's set up a hypothetical world in which I'm a normal citizen who turns criminal and I want to take over a plane with a gun. I then take it and the ammunition to an airport and ...pull out the gun and start waving it around, making demands that I be taken wherever I want, and anyone that doesn't like it will be shot. Here's my question for you: Which of your many laws prevented me getting on the plane with the gun and ammunition and making demands with it?
Some doubtless will. But again, this isn't about perfection, it's about making certain acts/crimes less likely to happen, reducing the death toll. We can do that. We can do a lot better than we're doing.It doesn't matter how many laws you make, people will go around them to commit crimes.
I answered this one with the note that some people on the pill get pregnant. Do I need to unpack that for you?Then Detroit should be at the top of ANY list of cities for being the safest, because (iirc) they have the most gun laws of any city in the USA
They don't by rate, otherwise the answer is, "For the same reason they have more natural deaths: population density."Why is it that the cities in the USA with the most gun laws have the most gun violence?
Lawyers will say that for the same reason doctors will say that we have the best available medical system in the world, because they are educated enough in the field to understand that what they're saying is true.Lawyers will say that, but what they mean is that we have the best paid lawyers in the world.
Heck, you can just have one guy with a big rock and a few rules. But if you want a better system, you'll have lawyers. You just have to understand what lawyers are and what they aren't. By the way, every judge is a lawyer.Lawyers aren't required for a criminal justice system.
The problem wasn't inherent in the job, any more than every priest became a viper by virtue of their calling. But in every age we have men with a will to power using and corrupting what they touch until we root them out as hypocrites and users. One way we guard against that in our system is the process of appeal and higher courts of review, something your approach wouldn't allow for, sadly.God didn't forget to add lawyers in when he gave Moses the laws for Israel. In fact, Jesus blasted the lawyers, saying they add unnecessary burden to the people.
You make these sweeping sort of declaratives without any meat on them. When I tell you we have a great system I note that overwhelmingly those charged with crimes in this country admit to it. That's a system doing its job. Overwhelmingly, convictions are upheld on appeal. That's a system doing its job. We have a lot of laws on the books that are contributing disproportionately to prison populations and court dates. They're largely about drugs. We have to decide how we want to respond to a lost war on that front.It's overburdened because it's inefficient, broken, and doesn't actually prevent any crime.
Well, no. That's a cartoon, not a reality. What tends to happen is someone with a drum to beat finds an exception to fit his bias and bangs away. Given how many cases are tried and disposed of daily you can find nearly anything you want that way, except the rule and a real understanding.Mostly burdened by the lawyers, who drag out court cases for sometimes DECADES, all the while getting paid by the hour.
And a great deal of injustice, human error, and bias would pass for justice. The more you concentrate power the more you invite its abuse. True of kings and true of judges. It's a bad idea, which is one reason we have juries and appellate courts and why almost no one is trying to get a monarchy in play anywhere in the world where republics have come into being.If judges were the ones doing the questioning and judging, court cases would take MINUTES, not years.
If you narrow a net sufficiently you can produce nearly any result. But you won't produce the rule or a real understanding.Singapore and Los Angeles have roughly the same size population. Yet, in one year, Singapore had 58 murders, while LA had 1063. Why? Because they don't imprison people for murder, they execute them (or at least, they did, not sure about now).
The whole "crime epidemic" is a vague, problematic construct. Until the last couple of years, we were seeing a significant reduction in all sorts of crime, especially violent crime, as I noted in my link.In the video, he's responding to an independent consultant who basically accuses him of hypocrisy. He asked "what has shifted in the last 10-40 years?" to cause this crime epidemic. And then he answers it thoroughly.
Still lamenting that the madly successful gun lobby (in either sense) has managed to facilitate schoolyards, churches, and concerts become killing grounds while wrapping a lie in the robes of public virtue.Man. Still crying over Florida shootings? Get over it man.
Is this just hyperbole for someone you see as a troll? or do you really believe this?Still lamenting that the madly successful gun lobby (in either sense) has managed to facilitate schoolyards, churches, and concerts become killing grounds while wrapping a lie in the robes of public virtue.