Care to throw out some bi-partisan legislation that hasn't been good for us? Or are you just over generalizing again?
Here is a bi-partisan that would have been good, but it didn't pass. I just received this from Rep. Justin Amash....
I voted yes on the Fortenberry of NE Amendment to #HR4870, which prohibits funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons in Syria. These weapons will be used against us and our allies, not just against the Syrian government. The amendment was not agreed to 167-244.
Both sides went "bi-partisan" and stopped this from passing. BOTH SIDES. The entire thing is corrupt, not just those evil Republicans.
On my phone on a break. I have a question. This bill that failed, was it confined to the above statement alone or were there unrelated amendments attached?
My post was for an amendment, I am not sure how many amendments were added but it looks like Halifax has that information.
I don't find murder funny either, hence why there should be more regulations around guns and weapons.
So what you're saying with gangs in Chicago is that because a small percentage break the rules we don't need them at all? So if the US was like the movie the Purge (all crime legal for a short time) all the time we would all be ok right?
Chicago is the city with the most regulated and strictest gun laws in the country, yet it leads in crimes where guns are used. Your logic does not make sense. A small percentage? The purge? Can you discuss the topic or is movie fantasy the way you want to make your argument?
You know, I've tried discussing this with you before and you never supply any solutions, or ideas that might work. You take things out of context and focus on one line to take off topic while ignoring the idea behind the one line (you would make a good politician). Then you supply one line answers that troll.
Last try: by small percentage I mean most of the millions of people in this country abide by the laws we have. A small percentage (gangs in Chicago etc.) don't, and never will. The law needs to be in place despite that small percentage, and so that there are consequences and we can catch that small percentage and put them in jail. (what percentage of ppl in jail are those Chicago gangbangers?) See the point?
Another thing, the current gun laws we have in place are obviously not enough because a lot of ppl are dying due to gun usage. Kids are getting their hands on guns and taking them to school everyday. There is no way to track guns to see who is supplying them to these gangbangers. So the laws should be changed to ensure the safety of the majority of the population.
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
I firmly believe that television programming is designed to keep the population docile and distracted.
When something bipartisan happens it is rarely good for us.
So I guess the Reagan years completely sucked and he was one of the worst presidents ever, huh? Care to throw out some bi-partisan legislation that hasn't been good for us? Or are you just over generalizing again?
You really do need to move and go live "free" somewhere, though. I don't know how you leave your shelter, what with the threat of arrest and cloying government oppression everywhere you turn. Maybe North Korea would suit you?
Peace.
First of all I generally don't respond to you because your tone is inflammatory, and I'm not going to debate someone who throws out personal jabs without delay.
Ahh, the typical right wing ploy of blaming the other side when you yourself do what you accuse me of. Your post headlines are not inflammatory? You are the source of reasoned debate? And when confronted with “facts”, from reputable news sources or the source itself, like legislation, in response to your links to paranoid, government, black helicopters, tyranny websites, you shrink away. Why is that? You don’t throw out personal jabs? Have you never used snark in your posts? Been demeaning to people who engage you but disagree? Yea, right?
Secondly, don't presume to know what is best for me, because like the government you don't know what that is.
I don’t know what is right for you but I don’t think you do either. You keep moaning about your restricted freedom but seem utterly powerless to change it. You want me to believe we’re all enslaved by the big bad government and yet I live freely every day. You’re oppressed? Yea, right. You’ve never been oppressed in your life. Try talking to some folks who lived behind the Iron Curtain, or fled Vietnam or China in their communist hey day, or better yet, visit a museum and/or read up on what true oppression is and then come back and explain to me how you’re suffering from it. A $6.00 fee on inner tubes? Oh the tyranny!
Thirdly, your peace ending is like trying to take words back, your entire posts scream anything but peace.
And your posts scream everything armed revolution with veils of racism and bias. So what? It’s a free country and freedom of speech still exists. Unless of course someone like you is offended by what is expressed by “you people.” Like the guy holding the photo shopped sign, maybe?
And you, and others, quickly resort to calling me paranoid, over-generalizing, and whatever else crosses your brain at the time it begins to process anything that I might add.
Well, make a reasoned argument using facts to back yourself up and stop over generalizing and linking to questionable news sources with a political ax to grind. Stop making everything that happens out to be some glaring government conspiracy to take your rights and guns away. You come across as paranoid and delusion, particularly when its so easy, with a little bit of research, to debunk the crap you post. But maybe you prefer to believe the made up shit because it suits your political agenda? And leave the snide, personal put downs out of it. You know, treat others the way you yourself would like to be treated. Unless you view that as some sort of PC, elitist, statist control of your freedom of expression.
If you what to discuss an issue and tell me why I'm wrong I'm listening, otherwise stop typing out black helicopters when you issue your line of defense.
I’ve linked to numerous reputable news sources in response to yours and other posts. You know fact based, stats or legislation or reporting on how bills came to be or were passed and the history behind them to oppose yours and others’ mistaken understanding. Its not my fault that you regularly rely on made up bullshit propagated by right wing/tea party media outlets with a political axe to grind. I’m not claiming to know or have a monopoly on the truth but some things are so easily verifiable and/or debunked that its laughable. Take the congressman visiting the detention center and your claim that democrats don’t follow the law when in fact they were precisely following the law or that “they must be hiding something.” That doesn’t sound like a conspiracy theory now does it? Your response? A snide one liner. Do you not read what I post in response to your posts? Do you not read the links to back it up? Am I posting shit in a vacuum here? If you’re looking for validation of your points and/or view, you might be better served on another forum or website.
So in another attempt to stay on topic some bipartisan laws that have affected us all include the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, farm subsidy bills, wind subsidies, and this NSA spying. I'm no Reagan acolyte either.
How have they affected us? How are we less free or not free as a result? What is it with each bill or act that you disagree with? What would be the alternative? You’re no Reagan acolyte so good for you. But you believe bi-partisan legislation screws us all? What is the alternative? No laws, no government, anarchy? Limited government to the point of being ineffectual? Government only to assist the markets and commerce? Which parts of the Patriot Act do you agree with, if any? How should we protect the US from terrorists? Do you honestly believe disengaging from the world would eliminate threats to the US? You oppose wind subsidies but what about oil subsidies? All subsidies or just some? Why? I don’t really expect you to engage me because I don’t think you’re interested. I’m expecting a “do your research” or “I’m not going to explain myself” type of response.
I don't find murder funny either, hence why there should be more regulations around guns and weapons.
So what you're saying with gangs in Chicago is that because a small percentage break the rules we don't need them at all? So if the US was like the movie the Purge (all crime legal for a short time) all the time we would all be ok right?
Chicago is the city with the most regulated and strictest gun laws in the country, yet it leads in crimes where guns are used. Your logic does not make sense. A small percentage? The purge? Can you discuss the topic or is movie fantasy the way you want to make your argument?
You know, I've tried discussing this with you before and you never supply any solutions, or ideas that might work. You take things out of context and focus on one line to take off topic while ignoring the idea behind the one line (you would make a good politician). Then you supply one line answers that troll.
Last try: by small percentage I mean most of the millions of people in this country abide by the laws we have. A small percentage (gangs in Chicago etc.) don't, and never will. The law needs to be in place despite that small percentage, and so that there are consequences and we can catch that small percentage and put them in jail. (what percentage of ppl in jail are those Chicago gangbangers?) See the point?
Another thing, the current gun laws we have in place are obviously not enough because a lot of ppl are dying due to gun usage. Kids are getting their hands on guns and taking them to school everyday. There is no way to track guns to see who is supplying them to these gangbangers. So the laws should be changed to ensure the safety of the majority of the population.
Telling me to pass more laws isn't a discussion. I'm asking you what laws that you would pass that would solve Chicago's violence. Let's focus on that alone, ok? Be specific. There are laws to do what you are asking, specifically it is illegal to make a straw purchase, it is illegal to sell to someone in Illinois without getting validation from the Illinois State Police that the buyer has a FOID card, it is illegal to shoot someone in Chicago, It is also illegal to kill someone in an offensive manner in Chicago. What would you do differently? How would you stop Chicago's street violence?
My point is that all of these laws are not enough o get these gangbangers to stop, what makes you think that more laws would stop them? They don't care about laws.
Alright if I were in charge (and no political bs would stop what I want to do): 1) The only law I would add would be to have to register guns, transfer guns just like you do with cars. That way guns can be tracked. They all have serial numbers right? (I don't know I don't own any.) 2) That's the only law I would add. 3) The problem in Chicago doesn't seem to be the laws, it's the enforcement. I bet there are nowhere near enough police presence in the areas where the gangs hang out. So hire more cops, give them gang training, let them do their job. (we had one here in Raleigh not too long ago that was very good). 4) Create jobs! Hire more gov't people to be able to track the guns that end up in the hands of gang's. Track them back to who bought them, if you are buying a lot of guns that end up in their hands you face consequences. I bet not more than a few ppl have been caught for straw purchases in Chicago, probably because it isn't enforceable.
So to summarize the gangs are still going to break those laws, but now those laws can be actually be enforced, and the suppliers can be caught and stopped. Guns can be tracked back to who is giving them to the gangs, and keep them out of their hands, or at least make it harder to get.
But I own a gun and shouldn't have to register it! Well you're grandfathered in, you don't have to register your current guns, except for any new gun purchases or sales. The life span of a gang member isn't that long, new law would be effective soon if not right away. And I would gladly register my gun if it helps keep others safe.
Oh and to bring it around and stay on topic the sequester cut a lot of police and other agencies, which wasn't Boehner a big part of?
So that's an idea, would never happen in the current world we live in. What would you do, and please point out where my flaws are.
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
Care to throw out some bi-partisan legislation that hasn't been good for us? Or are you just over generalizing again?
Here is a bi-partisan that would have been good, but it didn't pass. I just received this from Rep. Justin Amash....
I voted yes on the Fortenberry of NE Amendment to #HR4870, which prohibits funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons in Syria. These weapons will be used against us and our allies, not just against the Syrian government. The amendment was not agreed to 167-244.
Both sides went "bi-partisan" and stopped this from passing. BOTH SIDES. The entire thing is corrupt, not just those evil Republicans.
On my phone on a break. I have a question. This bill that failed, was it confined to the above statement alone or were there unrelated amendments attached?
80 amendments, some of which passed and some which failed. I'll try to give you a break out by party and a sampling of some of the amendments.
Peace.
That right there is why it failed. Amendments. Easy enough to insert to kill a bill. This has been in effect since earmarks stopped. Need to research to see when that was and what things were like before and since.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
if boehner wants to sue the president, he should use his own fucking money. not that of the american taxpayers.
I agree, I received a e-mail asking for help (money) to help sue obama and as much as I don't care for obama or boehner for that matter either one of those asshats will get a penny from me...but it will be fun to watch them duke it out.
Alright if I were in charge (and no political bs would stop what I want to do): 1) The only law I would add would be to have to register guns, transfer guns just like you do with cars. That way guns can be tracked. They all have serial numbers right? (I don't know I don't own any.) 2) That's the only law I would add. 3) The problem in Chicago doesn't seem to be the laws, it's the enforcement. I bet there are nowhere near enough police presence in the areas where the gangs hang out. So hire more cops, give them gang training, let them do their job. (we had one here in Raleigh not too long ago that was very good). 4) Create jobs! Hire more gov't people to be able to track the guns that end up in the hands of gang's. Track them back to who bought them, if you are buying a lot of guns that end up in their hands you face consequences. I bet not more than a few ppl have been caught for straw purchases in Chicago, probably because it isn't enforceable.
So to summarize the gangs are still going to break those laws, but now those laws can be actually be enforced, and the suppliers can be caught and stopped. Guns can be tracked back to who is giving them to the gangs, and keep them out of their hands, or at least make it harder to get.
But I own a gun and shouldn't have to register it! Well you're grandfathered in, you don't have to register your current guns, except for any new gun purchases or sales. The life span of a gang member isn't that long, new law would be effective soon if not right away. And I would gladly register my gun if it helps keep others safe.
Oh and to bring it around and stay on topic the sequester cut a lot of police and other agencies, which wasn't Boehner a big part of?
So that's an idea, would never happen in the current world we live in. What would you do, and please point out where my flaws are.
Ok, so the only law that you would add wouldn't be obeyed by the gangbangers. They grind off serial numbers (also a crime) and then use the weapons while committing a crime. What makes you think that they will register them?
3. If it's not the laws then why do you want to add more? I'm confused. But yes, the police are not doing their jobs. But ask yourself if they really care. These neighborhoods are almost 100% black. I'd settle for the police to walk their streets.
4. Well, that's easier when the red tape is removed. More government? We don't have enough? The guns are tracked already, why do we need to hire more people to do the same job? They know exactly where the guns come from. Let's not remotely pretend like that will solve crime, especially when they track these guns used in crime to programs like Fast and Furious.
So what would I do? I'm glad that you asked.
I'd enforce our border. This will stop a lot of the South American gang element from entering the country. We don't need anymore MS-13 members in Chicago. I would not send those caught here to prison, I would deport them. I'd rather pay for their plane tickets over housing and feeding them for the next ten years while they gain more connections in prison.
I'd put the police on the streets, walking their areas, not driving around.
I'd end the war on drugs. It doesn't work, just like prohibition didn't. It increases crime, just like prohibition did. The border is too easy to get across the keep this charade up any longer.
I'd make it much much easier for small business to operate. I'd reduce their taxes and I'd give property tax breaks to businesses that start up in high crime areas.
I would re-instate the death penalty Yeah, I know, not very popular. What other option is there when gangbangers execute kids for revenge? Parole after eight years?
I am greatly against mandatory minimum sentencing because people do make mistakes, but I would have it for certain actions. Use a gun while committing a robbery? Min sentence gets tripled.
I'd make it easier for a felon that has done his time to get a job. Felonies can be for a wide range of actions, many non-violent. For those that were non-violent I would reinstate their right to vote, their right to own a weapon, and their record would be expunged. This would only happen if they make it through parole without any further violation. Parole times would triple.
I also despise protected classes of people. So this one I fight with but I don't necessarily have the correct answer but somehow I would want a felon that has done his time without further incident and completed parole without violations to be able to get a job easier. Many places won't hire felons that have successful paid their debt. That stops. I'm not quite sure how yet but there has to be a way.
Seems the conservative republicans are beginning to question the wisdom, if you can call it that, of Beohner's politically motivated lawsuit. Even Sister Sarah has issues.
if boehner wants to sue the president, he should use his own fucking money. not that of the american taxpayers.
I agree, I received a e-mail asking for help (money) to help sue obama and as much as I don't care for obama or boehner for that matter either one of those asshats will get a penny from me...but it will be fun to watch them duke it out.
Godfather.
duke it out at who's expense?
hasn't this do-nothing house of representatives harmed enough people by failing to anything??
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."If you have never failed, you have never lived. sorry I'm not trying to use your sig. aginst you here but I read it after your last post and it reminded me of my own ideas and experiances.
Alright if I were in charge (and no political bs would stop what I want to do): 1) The only law I would add would be to have to register guns, transfer guns just like you do with cars. That way guns can be tracked. They all have serial numbers right? (I don't know I don't own any.) 2) That's the only law I would add. 3) The problem in Chicago doesn't seem to be the laws, it's the enforcement. I bet there are nowhere near enough police presence in the areas where the gangs hang out. So hire more cops, give them gang training, let them do their job. (we had one here in Raleigh not too long ago that was very good). 4) Create jobs! Hire more gov't people to be able to track the guns that end up in the hands of gang's. Track them back to who bought them, if you are buying a lot of guns that end up in their hands you face consequences. I bet not more than a few ppl have been caught for straw purchases in Chicago, probably because it isn't enforceable.
So to summarize the gangs are still going to break those laws, but now those laws can be actually be enforced, and the suppliers can be caught and stopped. Guns can be tracked back to who is giving them to the gangs, and keep them out of their hands, or at least make it harder to get.
But I own a gun and shouldn't have to register it! Well you're grandfathered in, you don't have to register your current guns, except for any new gun purchases or sales. The life span of a gang member isn't that long, new law would be effective soon if not right away. And I would gladly register my gun if it helps keep others safe.
Oh and to bring it around and stay on topic the sequester cut a lot of police and other agencies, which wasn't Boehner a big part of?
So that's an idea, would never happen in the current world we live in. What would you do, and please point out where my flaws are.
Ok, so the only law that you would add wouldn't be obeyed by the gangbangers. They grind off serial numbers (also a crime) and then use the weapons while committing a crime. What makes you think that they will register them?
3. If it's not the laws then why do you want to add more? I'm confused. But yes, the police are not doing their jobs. But ask yourself if they really care. These neighborhoods are almost 100% black. I'd settle for the police to walk their streets.
4. Well, that's easier when the red tape is removed. More government? We don't have enough? The guns are tracked already, why do we need to hire more people to do the same job? They know exactly where the guns come from. Let's not remotely pretend like that will solve crime, especially when they track these guns used in crime to programs like Fast and Furious.
So what would I do? I'm glad that you asked.
I'd enforce our border. This will stop a lot of the South American gang element from entering the country. We don't need anymore MS-13 members in Chicago. I would not send those caught here to prison, I would deport them. I'd rather pay for their plane tickets over housing and feeding them for the next ten years while they gain more connections in prison.
I'd put the police on the streets, walking their areas, not driving around.
I'd end the war on drugs. It doesn't work, just like prohibition didn't. It increases crime, just like prohibition did. The border is too easy to get across the keep this charade up any longer.
I'd make it much much easier for small business to operate. I'd reduce their taxes and I'd give property tax breaks to businesses that start up in high crime areas.
I would re-instate the death penalty Yeah, I know, not very popular. What other option is there when gangbangers execute kids for revenge? Parole after eight years?
I am greatly against mandatory minimum sentencing because people do make mistakes, but I would have it for certain actions. Use a gun while committing a robbery? Min sentence gets tripled.
I'd make it easier for a felon that has done his time to get a job. Felonies can be for a wide range of actions, many non-violent. For those that were non-violent I would reinstate their right to vote, their right to own a weapon, and their record would be expunged. This would only happen if they make it through parole without any further violation. Parole times would triple.
I also despise protected classes of people. So this one I fight with but I don't necessarily have the correct answer but somehow I would want a felon that has done his time without further incident and completed parole without violations to be able to get a job easier. Many places won't hire felons that have successful paid their debt. That stops. I'm not quite sure how yet but there has to be a way.
So I think we agree on a lot of it. You know the area better obviously with the immigration problems. I think we both had somewhat the same idea of stopping the guns from getting in their hands from the source. The laws sound good, but needs enforcing. Maybe more enforcement elsewhere will keep guns out of kids and mentally unstable people's hands too, I don't know...
As far as reintegrating criminals and felons I think that's a huge struggle. You send them to prison to make them a better criminal with connections etc. But there's no better option. Killing them? I don't know. Deporting? They come right back anyway, probably with drugs and weapons.
I think if mental health had more authority and power and size a lot of good could be done, this country would be a lot healthier. They could provide services and follow up for people out of prison, could provide services for kids before they get into gangs, they could say whether a person can handle the power of a gun, they could get into schools and provide services for kids there, help people who have turned it around get jobs, etc... But it's the first thing to get cut. So it's basically kids out of college as the staff doing the work, super high case loads, high turnover, because there's no pay or support. Oh yeah and when they go to court judge's don't listen to mental health people (rarely) and mostly get away with everything. On their side they can't put everyone in jail...
Quick question, our armed forces protect people everywhere else in this world. Why can't they be on the streets in Chicago and protect us? They don't have to do police's jobs but just protect people (with their fancy guns) and call the cops when something happens? Their budget is huge, put a mere few thousand on the streets across the country in problem areas. Drop in the bucket...
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
You know a larger part of Chicago problems is that these violators are able to plea bargain their crimes down so that they essentially are back on the street quicker. If they would stop that process it would keep them off the street longer.
Alright if I were in charge (and no political bs would stop what I want to do): 1) The only law I would add would be to have to register guns, transfer guns just like you do with cars. That way guns can be tracked. They all have serial numbers right? (I don't know I don't own any.) 2) That's the only law I would add. 3) The problem in Chicago doesn't seem to be the laws, it's the enforcement. I bet there are nowhere near enough police presence in the areas where the gangs hang out. So hire more cops, give them gang training, let them do their job. (we had one here in Raleigh not too long ago that was very good). 4) Create jobs! Hire more gov't people to be able to track the guns that end up in the hands of gang's. Track them back to who bought them, if you are buying a lot of guns that end up in their hands you face consequences. I bet not more than a few ppl have been caught for straw purchases in Chicago, probably because it isn't enforceable.
So to summarize the gangs are still going to break those laws, but now those laws can be actually be enforced, and the suppliers can be caught and stopped. Guns can be tracked back to who is giving them to the gangs, and keep them out of their hands, or at least make it harder to get.
But I own a gun and shouldn't have to register it! Well you're grandfathered in, you don't have to register your current guns, except for any new gun purchases or sales. The life span of a gang member isn't that long, new law would be effective soon if not right away. And I would gladly register my gun if it helps keep others safe.
Oh and to bring it around and stay on topic the sequester cut a lot of police and other agencies, which wasn't Boehner a big part of?
So that's an idea, would never happen in the current world we live in. What would you do, and please point out where my flaws are.
Ok, so the only law that you would add wouldn't be obeyed by the gangbangers. They grind off serial numbers (also a crime) and then use the weapons while committing a crime. What makes you think that they will register them?
3. If it's not the laws then why do you want to add more? I'm confused. But yes, the police are not doing their jobs. But ask yourself if they really care. These neighborhoods are almost 100% black. I'd settle for the police to walk their streets.
4. Well, that's easier when the red tape is removed. More government? We don't have enough? The guns are tracked already, why do we need to hire more people to do the same job? They know exactly where the guns come from. Let's not remotely pretend like that will solve crime, especially when they track these guns used in crime to programs like Fast and Furious.
So what would I do? I'm glad that you asked.
I'd enforce our border. This will stop a lot of the South American gang element from entering the country. We don't need anymore MS-13 members in Chicago. I would not send those caught here to prison, I would deport them. I'd rather pay for their plane tickets over housing and feeding them for the next ten years while they gain more connections in prison.
I'd put the police on the streets, walking their areas, not driving around.
I'd end the war on drugs. It doesn't work, just like prohibition didn't. It increases crime, just like prohibition did. The border is too easy to get across the keep this charade up any longer.
I'd make it much much easier for small business to operate. I'd reduce their taxes and I'd give property tax breaks to businesses that start up in high crime areas.
I would re-instate the death penalty Yeah, I know, not very popular. What other option is there when gangbangers execute kids for revenge? Parole after eight years?
I am greatly against mandatory minimum sentencing because people do make mistakes, but I would have it for certain actions. Use a gun while committing a robbery? Min sentence gets tripled.
I'd make it easier for a felon that has done his time to get a job. Felonies can be for a wide range of actions, many non-violent. For those that were non-violent I would reinstate their right to vote, their right to own a weapon, and their record would be expunged. This would only happen if they make it through parole without any further violation. Parole times would triple.
I also despise protected classes of people. So this one I fight with but I don't necessarily have the correct answer but somehow I would want a felon that has done his time without further incident and completed parole without violations to be able to get a job easier. Many places won't hire felons that have successful paid their debt. That stops. I'm not quite sure how yet but there has to be a way.
So I think we agree on a lot of it. You know the area better obviously with the immigration problems. I think we both had somewhat the same idea of stopping the guns from getting in their hands from the source. The laws sound good, but needs enforcing. Maybe more enforcement elsewhere will keep guns out of kids and mentally unstable people's hands too, I don't know...
As far as reintegrating criminals and felons I think that's a huge struggle. You send them to prison to make them a better criminal with connections etc. But there's no better option. Killing them? I don't know. Deporting? They come right back anyway, probably with drugs and weapons.
I think if mental health had more authority and power and size a lot of good could be done, this country would be a lot healthier. They could provide services and follow up for people out of prison, could provide services for kids before they get into gangs, they could say whether a person can handle the power of a gun, they could get into schools and provide services for kids there, help people who have turned it around get jobs, etc... But it's the first thing to get cut. So it's basically kids out of college as the staff doing the work, super high case loads, high turnover, because there's no pay or support. Oh yeah and when they go to court judge's don't listen to mental health people (rarely) and mostly get away with everything. On their side they can't put everyone in jail...
Quick question, our armed forces protect people everywhere else in this world. Why can't they be on the streets in Chicago and protect us? They don't have to do police's jobs but just protect people (with their fancy guns) and call the cops when something happens? Their budget is huge, put a mere few thousand on the streets across the country in problem areas. Drop in the bucket...
Why not? If you're doing nothing wrong they have no reason to bother you, and it might solve all the other gang violence that the police can't handle. Wouldn't you feel safer walking around the bad areas of Chicago if there were a few military Hummers around? And we could see all our tax dollars that go to the military at work protecting us.
Wouldn't it be funny if the world ended in 2010, with lots of fire?
a king can do whatever he wants. if he was the king, why has he not had his political enemies killed? why has he not had fox news blown up? why has he not named himself king until he dies and he can pass the crown down to malia?? why has he not gotten rid of the supreme court and ruled on constitutional cases himself?
sorry, but the obama naming himself a king line is just ridiculous.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
o.k....I rtead in some fly by night news site called the "conservitive tribune" that impeachment is or has been filed aginst obama (wishful thinking) has anybody else heard anything about it ?
At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.
yeaaaaa I thought it looked to good to be true but onward and forward.
Comments
My post was for an amendment, I am not sure how many amendments were added but it looks like Halifax has that information.
Last try: by small percentage I mean most of the millions of people in this country abide by the laws we have. A small percentage (gangs in Chicago etc.) don't, and never will. The law needs to be in place despite that small percentage, and so that there are consequences and we can catch that small percentage and put them in jail. (what percentage of ppl in jail are those Chicago gangbangers?) See the point?
Another thing, the current gun laws we have in place are obviously not enough because a lot of ppl are dying due to gun usage. Kids are getting their hands on guns and taking them to school everyday. There is no way to track guns to see who is supplying them to these gangbangers. So the laws should be changed to ensure the safety of the majority of the population.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
My point is that all of these laws are not enough o get these gangbangers to stop, what makes you think that more laws would stop them? They don't care about laws.
1) The only law I would add would be to have to register guns, transfer guns just like you do with cars. That way guns can be tracked. They all have serial numbers right? (I don't know I don't own any.)
2) That's the only law I would add.
3) The problem in Chicago doesn't seem to be the laws, it's the enforcement. I bet there are nowhere near enough police presence in the areas where the gangs hang out. So hire more cops, give them gang training, let them do their job. (we had one here in Raleigh not too long ago that was very good).
4) Create jobs! Hire more gov't people to be able to track the guns that end up in the hands of gang's. Track them back to who bought them, if you are buying a lot of guns that end up in their hands you face consequences. I bet not more than a few ppl have been caught for straw purchases in Chicago, probably because it isn't enforceable.
So to summarize the gangs are still going to break those laws, but now those laws can be actually be enforced, and the suppliers can be caught and stopped. Guns can be tracked back to who is giving them to the gangs, and keep them out of their hands, or at least make it harder to get.
But I own a gun and shouldn't have to register it! Well you're grandfathered in, you don't have to register your current guns, except for any new gun purchases or sales. The life span of a gang member isn't that long, new law would be effective soon if not right away. And I would gladly register my gun if it helps keep others safe.
Oh and to bring it around and stay on topic the sequester cut a lot of police and other agencies, which wasn't Boehner a big part of?
So that's an idea, would never happen in the current world we live in. What would you do, and please point out where my flaws are.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Godfather.
Ok, so the only law that you would add wouldn't be obeyed by the gangbangers. They grind off serial numbers (also a crime) and then use the weapons while committing a crime. What makes you think that they will register them?
3. If it's not the laws then why do you want to add more? I'm confused. But yes, the police are not doing their jobs. But ask yourself if they really care. These neighborhoods are almost 100% black. I'd settle for the police to walk their streets.
4. Well, that's easier when the red tape is removed. More government? We don't have enough? The guns are tracked already, why do we need to hire more people to do the same job? They know exactly where the guns come from. Let's not remotely pretend like that will solve crime, especially when they track these guns used in crime to programs like Fast and Furious.
So what would I do? I'm glad that you asked.
I'd enforce our border. This will stop a lot of the South American gang element from entering the country. We don't need anymore MS-13 members in Chicago. I would not send those caught here to prison, I would deport them. I'd rather pay for their plane tickets over housing and feeding them for the next ten years while they gain more connections in prison.
I'd put the police on the streets, walking their areas, not driving around.
I'd end the war on drugs. It doesn't work, just like prohibition didn't. It increases crime, just like prohibition did. The border is too easy to get across the keep this charade up any longer.
I'd make it much much easier for small business to operate. I'd reduce their taxes and I'd give property tax breaks to businesses that start up in high crime areas.
I would re-instate the death penalty Yeah, I know, not very popular. What other option is there when gangbangers execute kids for revenge? Parole after eight years?
I am greatly against mandatory minimum sentencing because people do make mistakes, but I would have it for certain actions. Use a gun while committing a robbery? Min sentence gets tripled.
I'd make it easier for a felon that has done his time to get a job. Felonies can be for a wide range of actions, many non-violent. For those that were non-violent I would reinstate their right to vote, their right to own a weapon, and their record would be expunged. This would only happen if they make it through parole without any further violation. Parole times would triple.
I also despise protected classes of people. So this one I fight with but I don't necessarily have the correct answer but somehow I would want a felon that has done his time without further incident and completed parole without violations to be able to get a job easier. Many places won't hire felons that have successful paid their debt. That stops. I'm not quite sure how yet but there has to be a way.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
hasn't this do-nothing house of representatives harmed enough people by failing to anything??
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
sorry I'm not trying to use your sig. aginst you here but I read it after your last post and it reminded me of my own ideas and experiances.
Godfather.
As far as reintegrating criminals and felons I think that's a huge struggle. You send them to prison to make them a better criminal with connections etc. But there's no better option. Killing them? I don't know. Deporting? They come right back anyway, probably with drugs and weapons.
I think if mental health had more authority and power and size a lot of good could be done, this country would be a lot healthier. They could provide services and follow up for people out of prison, could provide services for kids before they get into gangs, they could say whether a person can handle the power of a gun, they could get into schools and provide services for kids there, help people who have turned it around get jobs, etc... But it's the first thing to get cut. So it's basically kids out of college as the staff doing the work, super high case loads, high turnover, because there's no pay or support. Oh yeah and when they go to court judge's don't listen to mental health people (rarely) and mostly get away with everything. On their side they can't put everyone in jail...
Quick question, our armed forces protect people everywhere else in this world. Why can't they be on the streets in Chicago and protect us? They don't have to do police's jobs but just protect people (with their fancy guns) and call the cops when something happens? Their budget is huge, put a mere few thousand on the streets across the country in problem areas. Drop in the bucket...
You are asking for martial law? Really?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
how so?
a king can do whatever he wants. if he was the king, why has he not had his political enemies killed? why has he not had fox news blown up? why has he not named himself king until he dies and he can pass the crown down to malia?? why has he not gotten rid of the supreme court and ruled on constitutional cases himself?
sorry, but the obama naming himself a king line is just ridiculous.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Godfather.
At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Godfather.