Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Ray From Cleveland]

The death penalty makes sure they never commit murder again.

So you don't trust the government with background checks, but you trust them enough to allow them to execute citizens?

It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with bringing forth punishment for a crime committed.

So you don't trust the government to off somebody, but you trust government to lock them up in prison for most or the rest of their life?

 

[Wilbur Right]

That's why it's my belief that the family should make the decision on the death penalty.

Of course you believe that. You also believe you can/should shoot someone for breaking into your car.

Keep adding bad ideas to your list of bad ideas.

 

[M14 Shooter]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

Compare apples to apples .

I see you understand your claim does not hold up when taken at face value.
Good for you.

You afraid to compare similar states, aren't you . That's makes you intellectually dishonest .

According to your plenary and unconditional claim that "States with tougher gun laws have less gun crime" , any talk of "similar states" is irrelevant.
Good to see you understand your claim is nonsense.

 

[P@triot]

“[Virginians] know and value too highly the blessings of their Union … to consider every infraction [of the Constitution] as to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument to make every difference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater–submission to a government of unlimited powers.” - Thomas Jefferson (December 26, 1825)

 

[P@triot]

 

[P@triot]

 

[ChrisL]

The death penalty makes sure they never commit murder again.

So you don't trust the government with background checks, but you trust them enough to allow them to execute citizens?

It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with bringing forth punishment for a crime committed.

So you don't trust the government to off somebody, but you trust government to lock them up in prison for most or the rest of their life?

There is a pretty big difference between the two, so yes.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state. As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.

Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.

I think that the death penalty should be in every state. I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives. They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty. in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself. And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.

I disagree. Once you are dead, you are dead. Dirt nap time. You don't have any worries or problems anymore. It's adios and all over. The only people who suffer in that particular case are the family members, and it doesn't bring the victim back, and it is extremely expensive due to appeals which are automatic because it is our RIGHT when it comes to a DP case so that the government can't just kill us on a whim, and they have been known to railroad people in the past, use bad evidence, concoct evidence, etc., etc., etc.

If somebody kills a member of my family, the only thing that would make me happy is to kill the murderer myself. But since our laws don't allow me to legally do that, I trust the state to do it for me. The state is carrying out my will.

I can't imagine how awful it would be for a victims family to look at their paycheck stub every week, and knowing their hard earned money is going to support the scum that brought so much pain to them; the food, the facilities, the clean laundry, the medical care.............

There are plenty of families out there who do not want the perp killed. It takes years and years and prolongs their pain. They want the perp sentenced to life and be done with it. Do you know what it's like to have to go to court for YEARS and rehash those feelings over and over again?

 

[P@triot]

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state. As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.

Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.

I think that the death penalty should be in every state. I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives. They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty. in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself. And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.

I disagree. Once you are dead, you are dead. Dirt nap time. You don't have any worries or problems anymore. It's adios and all over. The only people who suffer in that particular case are the family members, and it doesn't bring the victim back, and it is extremely expensive due to appeals which are automatic because it is our RIGHT when it comes to a DP case so that the government can't just kill us on a whim, and they have been known to railroad people in the past, use bad evidence, concoct evidence, etc., etc., etc.

If somebody kills a member of my family, the only thing that would make me happy is to kill the murderer myself. But since our laws don't allow me to legally do that, I trust the state to do it for me. The state is carrying out my will.

I can't imagine how awful it would be for a victims family to look at their paycheck stub every week, and knowing their hard earned money is going to support the scum that brought so much pain to them; the food, the facilities, the clean laundry, the medical care.............

There are plenty of families out there who do not want the perp killed. It takes years and years and prolongs their pain. They want the perp sentenced to life and be done with it. Do you know what it's like to have to go to court for YEARS and rehash those feelings over and over again?

Well I'm not sure that is a legitimate argument. Family and friends don't have to show up for sentencing, appeals, etc.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state. As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.

Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.

I think that the death penalty should be in every state. I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives. They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty. in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself. And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.

I disagree. Once you are dead, you are dead. Dirt nap time. You don't have any worries or problems anymore. It's adios and all over. The only people who suffer in that particular case are the family members, and it doesn't bring the victim back, and it is extremely expensive due to appeals which are automatic because it is our RIGHT when it comes to a DP case so that the government can't just kill us on a whim, and they have been known to railroad people in the past, use bad evidence, concoct evidence, etc., etc., etc.

If somebody kills a member of my family, the only thing that would make me happy is to kill the murderer myself. But since our laws don't allow me to legally do that, I trust the state to do it for me. The state is carrying out my will.

I can't imagine how awful it would be for a victims family to look at their paycheck stub every week, and knowing their hard earned money is going to support the scum that brought so much pain to them; the food, the facilities, the clean laundry, the medical care.............

There are plenty of families out there who do not want the perp killed. It takes years and years and prolongs their pain. They want the perp sentenced to life and be done with it. Do you know what it's like to have to go to court for YEARS and rehash those feelings over and over again?

Well I'm not sure that is a legitimate argument. Family and friends don't have to show up for sentencing, appeals, etc.

It draws it out and is a very long process. There are TWO trials. One to convict and one for sentencing. Besides, it is wrong to give the state the power to kill citizens. The state should never have such power. NEVER.

 

[Timmy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime .

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

Compare apples to apples .

I see you understand your claim does not hold up when taken at face value.
Good for you.

You afraid to compare similar states, aren't you . That's makes you intellectually dishonest .

According to your plenary and unconditional claim that "States with tougher gun laws have less gun crime" , any talk of "similar states" is irrelevant.
Good to see you understand your claim is nonsense.

What are talking about ? I issued u a challenge and u bailed . You want to compare Vermont wh Cali? That's so intellectually dishonest .

Should we compare traffic congestion of Burlington vs LA ?

 

[2aguy]

Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.

I think that the death penalty should be in every state. I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives. They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty. in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself. And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.

I disagree. Once you are dead, you are dead. Dirt nap time. You don't have any worries or problems anymore. It's adios and all over. The only people who suffer in that particular case are the family members, and it doesn't bring the victim back, and it is extremely expensive due to appeals which are automatic because it is our RIGHT when it comes to a DP case so that the government can't just kill us on a whim, and they have been known to railroad people in the past, use bad evidence, concoct evidence, etc., etc., etc.

If somebody kills a member of my family, the only thing that would make me happy is to kill the murderer myself. But since our laws don't allow me to legally do that, I trust the state to do it for me. The state is carrying out my will.

I can't imagine how awful it would be for a victims family to look at their paycheck stub every week, and knowing their hard earned money is going to support the scum that brought so much pain to them; the food, the facilities, the clean laundry, the medical care.............

There are plenty of families out there who do not want the perp killed. It takes years and years and prolongs their pain. They want the perp sentenced to life and be done with it. Do you know what it's like to have to go to court for YEARS and rehash those feelings over and over again?

Well I'm not sure that is a legitimate argument. Family and friends don't have to show up for sentencing, appeals, etc.

It draws it out and is a very long process. There are TWO trials. One to convict and one for sentencing. Besides, it is wrong to give the state the power to kill citizens. The state should never have such power. NEVER.

Our cops have it.....

 

[ChrisL]

I disagree. Once you are dead, you are dead. Dirt nap time. You don't have any worries or problems anymore. It's adios and all over. The only people who suffer in that particular case are the family members, and it doesn't bring the victim back, and it is extremely expensive due to appeals which are automatic because it is our RIGHT when it comes to a DP case so that the government can't just kill us on a whim, and they have been known to railroad people in the past, use bad evidence, concoct evidence, etc., etc., etc.

If somebody kills a member of my family, the only thing that would make me happy is to kill the murderer myself. But since our laws don't allow me to legally do that, I trust the state to do it for me. The state is carrying out my will.

I can't imagine how awful it would be for a victims family to look at their paycheck stub every week, and knowing their hard earned money is going to support the scum that brought so much pain to them; the food, the facilities, the clean laundry, the medical care.............

There are plenty of families out there who do not want the perp killed. It takes years and years and prolongs their pain. They want the perp sentenced to life and be done with it. Do you know what it's like to have to go to court for YEARS and rehash those feelings over and over again?

Well I'm not sure that is a legitimate argument. Family and friends don't have to show up for sentencing, appeals, etc.

It draws it out and is a very long process. There are TWO trials. One to convict and one for sentencing. Besides, it is wrong to give the state the power to kill citizens. The state should never have such power. NEVER.

Our cops have it.....

Not really. They are only supposed to shoot to kill if they feel their lives are in danger or to save the lives of innocent people. Almost all "modern" countries have done away with the death penalty. We are the only "first world" country that still employs the death penalty, and we are in rank with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Nice. Something to be "proud" of, eh?

 

[2aguy]

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

Compare apples to apples .

I see you understand your claim does not hold up when taken at face value.
Good for you.

You afraid to compare similar states, aren't you . That's makes you intellectually dishonest .

According to your plenary and unconditional claim that "States with tougher gun laws have less gun crime" , any talk of "similar states" is irrelevant.
Good to see you understand your claim is nonsense.

What are talking about ? I issued u a challenge and u bailed . You want to compare Vermont wh Cali? That's so intellectually dishonest .

Should we compare traffic congestion of Burlington vs LA ?

I'll compare...you guys tell us it is the easy access to guns that create violent crime.....California has the stricest gun control in the country....lots of gun violence....

Vermont...all the gun freedom you could want.....and little to no crime....but you say...not that many people in the state.....but that doesn't matter...with the same say access to guns their little state should be worse than the city of Baltimore...........a city with every single gun control law you want...and one of the highest gun murder rates in the country....


You put out the standard...easy access to guns, lots of gun crime...so Vermont per capita should be far worse than even California......


There is not one aspect of the gun debate that supports any thing you say....

 

[2aguy]

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

Compare apples to apples .

I see you understand your claim does not hold up when taken at face value.
Good for you.

You afraid to compare similar states, aren't you . That's makes you intellectually dishonest .

According to your plenary and unconditional claim that "States with tougher gun laws have less gun crime" , any talk of "similar states" is irrelevant.
Good to see you understand your claim is nonsense.

What are talking about ? I issued u a challenge and u bailed . You want to compare Vermont wh Cali? That's so intellectually dishonest .

Should we compare traffic congestion of Burlington vs LA ?

Population of the state of Vermont......626,562

Population of the city of Baltimore....622,104 (2013)

gun murders in Vermont....7

Gun murders in the city of Baltimore....344...

So....roughly the same population...

Vermont has easy gun laws...

Maryland, and Baltimore, extreme gun control laws...every one the gun grabber want......

And there you go....

According to you....Vermont should be as bloody, actually bloodier than Baltimore...right? If access to guns is the issue...right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please compare and contrast the gun laws and the crime statistics for CA and VT.
When you do, you'll find your statement proven wrong.

Compare apples to apples .

I see you understand your claim does not hold up when taken at face value.
Good for you.

You afraid to compare similar states, aren't you . That's makes you intellectually dishonest .

According to your plenary and unconditional claim that "States with tougher gun laws have less gun crime" , any talk of "similar states" is irrelevant.
Good to see you understand your claim is nonsense.

What are talking about ?

I'm talking about you moving the goalposts, which you did once you realized your original statement was nonsense.
You stated that "States with tougher gun laws have less gun crime"; this is demonstrably untrue.
Now, admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course, I'm not against the "death penalty" imposed by a citizen protecting him/herself though, just by the state. As citizens of the US, I don't believe our states should be able to "judge" us to end our lives though.

Ending a life is just as much of a penalty as imprisonment.

I think that the death penalty should be in every state. I also think that it's the family (not the judge or jury) that should determine if the death penalty will bring closure in their lives. They may be a religious family and not believe in the death penalty. in such a case, I don't think the state has the right to violate their beliefs.

As for myself, if something terrible happened to a member of my immediate family, you couldn't torture enough, starve enough, carry out the death penalty long enough to satisfy my taste for revenge unless the state allowed me to do it to the prisoner myself. And if our state robbed me of the satisfaction to see the death of a violator of my family, I might be so outraged that I'd blow up the entire prison myself just to get even.

I disagree. Once you are dead, you are dead. Dirt nap time. You don't have any worries or problems anymore. It's adios and all over. The only people who suffer in that particular case are the family members, and it doesn't bring the victim back, and it is extremely expensive due to appeals which are automatic because it is our RIGHT when it comes to a DP case so that the government can't just kill us on a whim, and they have been known to railroad people in the past, use bad evidence, concoct evidence, etc., etc., etc.

If somebody kills a member of my family, the only thing that would make me happy is to kill the murderer myself. But since our laws don't allow me to legally do that, I trust the state to do it for me. The state is carrying out my will.

I can't imagine how awful it would be for a victims family to look at their paycheck stub every week, and knowing their hard earned money is going to support the scum that brought so much pain to them; the food, the facilities, the clean laundry, the medical care.............

There are plenty of families out there who do not want the perp killed. It takes years and years and prolongs their pain. They want the perp sentenced to life and be done with it. Do you know what it's like to have to go to court for YEARS and rehash those feelings over and over again?

Trials take the same amount of time for death penalty cases as they do life in prison cases. The lengthy draws are when the subject files for appeals which takes forever, and that's what needs to change in this country.

While they are filing for appeals, they are imprisoned the entire time and that's no different than if a family has their attacker sentenced to life. It doesn't change a thing.

I don't know, but I believe if a family is really against the death penalty, they can have a word with the judge to make their feelings known, and I can't imagine a judge would not honor their request.

However, if there were no death penalty and I wanted to see the attacker killed, I have no ability to see that because law would prohibit it, and then I would have to live my entire life anguished by the fact the person who did this to me is doing just fine in a prison I'm helping to pay for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The death penalty makes sure they never commit murder again.

So you don't trust the government with background checks, but you trust them enough to allow them to execute citizens?

It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with bringing forth punishment for a crime committed.

So you don't trust the government to off somebody, but you trust government to lock them up in prison for most or the rest of their life?

There is a pretty big difference between the two, so yes.

I don't see a difference. You either trust the state or you don't.

 

[Centinel]

There are plenty of families out there who do not want the perp killed. It takes years and years and prolongs their pain. They want the perp sentenced to life and be done with it. Do you know what it's like to have to go to court for YEARS and rehash those feelings over and over again?

I would support the idea of a convicted murderer being handed over to the family to do with him as they wish. They may, as you say, want him to remain alive until the end of his natural life. Or they may want to kill him. The choice should be theirs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not really. They are only supposed to shoot to kill if they feel their lives are in danger or to save the lives of innocent people. Almost all "modern" countries have done away with the death penalty. We are the only "first world" country that still employs the death penalty, and we are in rank with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Nice. Something to be "proud" of, eh?

Depends on how you look at it.

Years ago a store opened up near my home. I'm for small business so when I needed something, I always went to this new store.

It was a middle-east family and very nice people at that. One night when I walked there to get some beer, the police were inside talking with the employee. After they left, I asked what happened. He told me some drunk came into the store, took several packs of cigarettes off of the counter and left.

He said his grandmother was asking him how he was doing here in the US and what his environment was like, so he sent her a copy of our local paper. She wrote back with great concern.

She stated that we have more theft in our suburb in one week than the entire middle-east has in a year. I asked him if that was true and he concurred.

He said where he was from, if a person is caught stealing, the police cut off his hand, and not in a hospital either. If caught sealing again, off comes the second hand. There is no third time.

He said that their markets are outside, and they place tables and chairs for customers to sit at. He said if a woman lay her purse on a table and walked away, it's more than likely to still be there the next day. Over here, you have to buy guard dogs and house alarms just to keep people out of your home while you are at work.