Jill Stein demands recount in 3 states

[Foxtrapper]

I'd actually wager others are parroting me if you look at the real history.

It always moves on to the toddler and mental patient thing, to which I say they are already locked up for all intents and purposes and the cycle repeats.

To which I answer how many deaths have you read about with toddlers shooting someone? At least 2 in the last month. Not all mental patients are locked up, we have a large liberal population as proof. Besides, do you think the Aroura, SandyHook, and about a dozen other shooters were sane? So, are they really "locked up"? I think not

 

[Marine Cpl]

Really? You seem fixated on the whole violent crime thing, which is only one part of your statement. I've already made it clear on my views about violent criminals. So let's put all that off to the side for a moment. Instead, let's pick up your statement, and I quote, "anyone who can't be trusted with a gun needs to be locked up." Let's look at that for a moment. There are lots of people I don't trust with a weapon, liberals being at the top of the list. But I don't trust the mentally ill, the very young, and the completely stupid to carry a gun. Does that mean we should lock them up? NO, it doesn't, except of course in your world. I do not believe that just because you aren't responsible enough to carry a weapon that you automatically give up the right to freedom. Your statement is all inclusive of everyone, which IMHO is wrong, not everyone who shouldn't carry should be "locked up"....

To answer your question, the answer is no. Those Liberals, mentally ill, and young should NOT be locked up until after they have committed a violent crime just the same as you and I.

You talk about Pre Crimes but that is what you are doing by taking away someone's rights because they went into a hospital for depression or jail for tax evasion.

As far as my statement goes, those that cannot be trusted with guns are those who cannot be trusted to be violent amongst others in a free society. Not those who have NOT committed such crimes.

 

[Foxtrapper]

To answer your question, the answer is no. Those Liberals, mentally ill, and young should NOT be locked up until after they have committed a violent crime just the same as you and I.

You talk about Pre Crimes but that is what you are doing by taking away someone's rights because they went into a hospital for depression or jail for tax evasion.

As far as my statement goes, those that cannot be trusted with guns are those who cannot be trusted to be violent amongst others in a free society. Not those who have NOT committed such crimes.

Read that last line again, i'm pretty sure that's not how you want it read. As far as your pre-crimes statement, not me taking away their rights, I'm just saying there are people I don't trust to carry a weapon who don't deserve to be locked up...

 

[NirvanaFan]

I'm generally in favor of people getting all their rights back when they are released from prison. However, I've always struggled with the extremely high recidivism rate. Within 5 years...
82% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime
77% of drug offenders
74% of public order offenders
71% of violent offenders.
*Rates come from Once a criminal, always a criminal?

And, those are just the ones who got caught again. Clearly, our prison system is messed up. Prison doesn't rehabilitate. How can we determine who is likely to commit another violent crime so we can only release the "safe" people? I'm not arguing for it, but, it's way easier to just say, "You can't own firearms anymore."

 

[GOPerfect]

They lose more than one right. The reason the 2A is so special is it allows one to carry a weapon that can kill your ass from a distance...

What other Rights do they lose? Most States allow voting as soon as sentence is complete.

These horrible Felons are allowed to buy every other tool that can be turned into a weapon. So why only one? This is pure propaganda.

 

[GOPerfect]

I'm generally in favor of people getting all their rights back when they are released from prison. However, I've always struggled with the extremely high recidivism rate. Within 5 years...
82% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime
77% of drug offenders
74% of public order offenders
71% of violent offenders.
*Rates come from Once a criminal, always a criminal?

And, those are just the ones who got caught again. Clearly, our prison system is messed up. Prison doesn't rehabilitate. How can we determine who is likely to commit another violent crime so we can only release the "safe" people? I'm not arguing for it, but, it's way easier to just say, "You can't own firearms anymore."

This is my point! This is what we are all saying. We are not necessarily saying that these crims should be allowed to own guns persay; we are saying that if they are so bad, they should NOT be released from prison.

 

[Foxtrapper]

This is my point! This is what we are all saying. We are not necessarily saying that these crims should be allowed to own guns persay; we are saying that if they are so bad, they should NOT be released from prison.

Then make their sentences longer, or make the death penalty used for a wider range of crimes. There's a wide range of things that could be done, but, holding them because you THINK they might do something isn't one of them...

 

[Marine Cpl]

Read that last line again, i'm pretty sure that's not how you want it read. As far as your pre-crimes statement, not me taking away their rights, I'm just saying there are people I don't trust to carry a weapon who don't deserve to be locked up...

Yes. That's how I do want it read. What's wrong with that?

If a criminal or mental deficient cannot be trusted to NOT hurt anyone whether it's with a gun or a knife, he shouldn't be in a position where he can in free society. What does a gun have to do with it?

You are fixated on this gun stuff but that same person can hurt WITHOUT a gun. You don't understand that?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Then make their sentences longer, or make the death penalty used for a wider range of crimes. There's a wide range of things that could be done, but, holding them because you THINK they might do something isn't one of them...

You still don't get it do you?

We don't want someone held because they might! We want someone held because they have proven to actually do it. This includes everyone. You, me, or a guy that just paid his debt.

After they do their time incarcerated and the courts determine that they could be trusted to be freed, that's it. You go on probation into free society which is still part of your sentence. After you have demonstrated your ability to be amongst free men and your probationary period is over, you get ALL your rights back.

 

[Foxtrapper]

Yes. That's how I do want it read. What's wrong with that?

If a criminal or mental deficient cannot be trusted to NOT hurt anyone whether it's with a gun or a knife, he shouldn't be in a position where he can in free society. What does a gun have to do with it?

You are fixated on this gun stuff but that same person can hurt WITHOUT a gun. You don't understand that?

I give up, if you can't or won't understand what your own idea implies for people who are non-criminal, but still shouldn't be trusted with a gun, then there is zero help for you...

To answer your question, the answer is no. Those Liberals, mentally ill, and young should NOT be locked up until after they have committed a violent crime just the same as you and I.

You talk about Pre Crimes but that is what you are doing by taking away someone's rights because they went into a hospital for depression or jail for tax evasion.

As far as my statement goes, those that cannot be trusted with guns are those who cannot be trusted to be violent amongst others in a free society. Not those who have NOT committed such crimes.

Last sentence I interpt as stating..that if you aren't violent in free society you can't be trusted with a gun...

 

[Foxtrapper]

You still don't get it do you?

We don't want someone held because they might! We want someone held because they have proven to actually do it. This includes everyone. You, me, or a guy that just paid his debt.

After they do their time incarcerated and the courts determine that they could be trusted to be freed, that's it. You go on probation into free society which is still part of your sentence. After you have demonstrated your ability to be amongst free men and your probationary period is over, you get ALL your rights back.

Em...sorry, I don't want violent felons to ever have a gun or weapon back. Only way that happens is to keep them in jail, which would require longer sentences. If any felon wants his rights back, they can patition the court to get them back. That is how it is, and how it should be. We as a people did not tell them, or make them commit the crime, therefore as a people we shouldn't be expected to just hand them back the rights they threw away to commit a crime in the first place. That is how it should be.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I give up, if you can't or won't understand what your own idea implies for people who are non-criminal, but still shouldn't be trusted with a gun, then there is zero help for you...




Last sentence I interpt as stating..that if you aren't violent in free society you can't be trusted with a gun...

You still aren't getting it. Those non-criminal people you speak of should have the same rights as you until they have committed the crime and not have their rights taken from them preemptively.

 

[Foxtrapper]

You still aren't getting it. Those non-criminal people you speak of should have the same rights as you until they have committed the crime and not have their rights taken from them preemptively.

And you don't get it...I DIDN"T TAKE THEIR RIGHTS..OMG man really..I just don't trust them with a gun, and, I don't think they should be locked up, like you do...

 

[Marine Cpl]

You don't trust them even if they have committed no crime so they are stripped of their rights. That sounds like a dictatorship to me.

 

[Foxtrapper]

You don't trust them even if they have committed no crime so they are stripped of their rights. That sounds like a dictatorship to me.

Now we're just being stupid. I'm pretty sure everyone has met someone they wouldn't trust with a gun at some point in their life, who is not a criminal or even mentally defective..I'm done with this conversation..

 

[Marine Cpl]

I'll say it one last time because you choose to ignore it over and over.

I do NOT want to lock up anyone who has NOT committed a crime.

I do NOT want to lock up someone who MAY commit a crime buy HAS NOT yet.

I do want to lock up someone who HAS committed a crime.

The guy who MAY but HASN'T has the same rights as you and I. You have to commit the crime first. But according to you, since you do not trust him to behave non violent, his rights should be stripped even though he has NOT committed a crime.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Now we're just being stupid. I'm pretty sure everyone has met someone they wouldn't trust with a gun at some point in their life, who is not a criminal or even mentally defective..I'm done with this conversation..

Right. But who are you to say they cannot be trusted?

 

[Snappo]

I'm generally in favor of people getting all their rights back when they are released from prison. However, I've always struggled with the extremely high recidivism rate. Within 5 years...
82% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime
77% of drug offenders
74% of public order offenders
71% of violent offenders.
*Rates come from Once a criminal, always a criminal?

And, those are just the ones who got caught again. Clearly, our prison system is messed up. Prison doesn't rehabilitate. How can we determine who is likely to commit another violent crime so we can only release the "safe" people? I'm not arguing for it, but, it's way easier to just say, "You can't own firearms anymore."

Here we go down the road again. By race, what are the recidivism statistics for violent crimes of murder, rape, and armed assault? I continue to say we do not have a "prison system" or "court system" problem, but have a sub culture problem among certain inner city races and that race is a predictor of crime. And I do not say "all races" because even though White Appalachians are even more impoverished than inner city minorities; they are nowhere near as criminal. They do not have their own genre of music that extols the virtues of being a gangsta, hurting the police, or viewing other races as the enemy. Here is a typical editorial story on White Appalachia crime and there are thousands of these such observational articles out there in the ether of the internet:
Poverty Causes Crime? Meet White Appalachia

 

[Snappo]

Again, I ask a simple question...

Why do they only lose one Right? Why not all of them. Why is the 2A so special?

Misuse of 2A can cause the death of others. A criminal cannot kill someone by picking a different church or by LEO needing a search warrant before their home is invaded. A violent felony criminal should never be allowed the free exercise of 2A ever again, nor have the right to vote.

 

[Foxtrapper]

I'll say it one last time because you choose to ignore it over and over.

I do NOT want to lock up anyone who has NOT committed a crime.

I do NOT want to lock up someone who MAY commit a crime buy HAS NOT yet.

I do want to lock up someone who HAS committed a crime.

The guy who MAY but HASN'T has the same rights as you and I. You have to commit the crime first. But according to you, since you do not trust him to behave non violent, his rights should be stripped even though he has NOT committed a crime.

Yeah, wrong. If I distrust someone, they aren't around me, period. The government is in charge of rights, not me. I am not, and have never been a member of the government. I have zero say in anything, nor have I made any statements to the contrary about anyone's rights. Unlike you who made a blanket statement, and I quote, "anyone who can't be trusted with a gun, should be locked up". You said that, not me. You can walk it back all you want, but you made that statement and then defended it. I am not ignoring your statement, you made it, you own it..

 

[Foxtrapper]

Right. But who are you to say they cannot be trusted?

I am the King, when I say they can't be trusted, it is law...at least around me and my family and my home. And that my friend is all that matters...

 

[Marine Cpl]

I will own anything I have said. On the blanket statement that anyone who cannot be trusted with a gun should be locked up still stands. You just don't understand it or refuse to. This does not include children so don't go down that ridiculous route again. We are talking about adults here. Don't nitpick words to look for loopholes that you can argue on like you've been doing.

If someone cannot be trusted because they can possibly kill someone, then they might be a mental deficient and need to be locked up in a mental institution and evaluated and ONLY let out if they are deemed safe to the public and trusted to carry a knife, gun, shank, or any weapon including a car or truck. If they are crazy enough to use a gun, they are crazy enough to use a knife. Key point here.

If they have committed the actual crime, then they have to pay the price in prison and only let out after they are deemed safe. A probationary period is part of that sentence to determine if they are indeed safe to have their rights restored.

You do not agree with any of what I just said?

 

[NirvanaFan]

Here we go down the road again. By race, what are the recidivism statistics for violent crimes of murder, rape, and armed assault?

If the prison systems are supposed to reform and rehabilitate they (Which I believe they are), then they aren't doing their job. Race, location, hair color, length of toenails and anything else is totally irrelevant.

 

[Foxtrapper]

I will own anything I have said. On the blanket statement that anyone who cannot be trusted with a gun should be locked up still stands. You just don't understand it or refuse to. This does not include children so don't go down that ridiculous route again. We are talking about adults here. Don't nitpick words to look for loopholes that you can argue on.

If someone cannot be trusted because they can possibly kill someone, then they might be a mental deficient and need to be locked up in a mental institution and evaluated and ONLY let out if they are deemed safe to the public and trusted to carry a knife, gun, shank, or any weapon including a car or truck. If they are crazy enough to use a gun, they are crazy enough to use a knife. Key point here.

If they have committed the actual crime, then they have to pay the price in prison and only let out after they are deemed safe. A probationary period is part of that sentence to determine if they are indeed safe to have their rights restored.

You do not agree with any of what I just said?

Now your modifying your stance. Now we have included knives, axes, clubs..basicly anything that could be used as a weapon. I absolutely understand your statement. You are twisting yourself all up trying to defend it..ok, so let's not include children in this...really? Guess it depends on your definition of children. There are a lot of examples of children I wouldn't trust with a gun, or any other weapon. If you would say, kids less than 10 yrs of age, that I could agree with. Mental illness is one of those things you will loose on every time you take your blanket statement and apply it to them. If they are medicated, and stay on their meds, they are probably safe. But, if they go off meds just one time the chances of something bad happening is increased by 10 fold. So, do you really trust them? Or, do you lock them up? There are so many different senireos that could happen, that 2A rights and blanket statements will never be compatable.

I just do not agree with your stance on this. There are people who should have 2A rights, and there are those who should not. But, not having 2A rights shouldn't mean you are locked up for life..

 

[Marine Cpl]

Now your modifying your stance. Now we have included knives, axes, clubs..basicly anything that could be used as a weapon. I absolutely understand your statement. You are twisting yourself all up trying to defend it..ok, so let's not include children in this...really? Guess it depends on your definition of children. There are a lot of examples of children I wouldn't trust with a gun, or any other weapon. If you would say, kids less than 10 yrs of age, that I could agree with. Mental illness is one of those things you will loose on every time you take your blanket statement and apply it to them. If they are medicated, and stay on their meds, they are probably safe. But, if they go off meds just one time the chances of something bad happening is increased by 10 fold. So, do you really trust them? Or, do you lock them up? There are so many different senireos that could happen, that 2A rights and blanket statements will never be compatable.

I just do not agree with your stance on this. There are people who should have 2A rights, and there are those who should not. But, not having 2A rights shouldn't mean you are locked up for life..

I'm done with you. If you truly believed I meant children in previous posts and if you truly believe that someone who cannot be trusted with a gun can be trusted with a knife, then perhaps you are the mental deficient. That shouldn't have to be explained to you.

I suspect that isn't the case however but rather you pretend to not have understood that so you can continue defending your point.

Holy crap man!

 

[GOPerfect]

Misuse of 2A can cause the death of others. A criminal cannot kill someone by picking a different church or by LEO needing a search warrant before their home is invaded. A violent felony criminal should never be allowed the free exercise of 2A ever again, nor have the right to vote.

Then that person should lose the ability to exercise ALL of his Rights found in the Bill of Rights!

They should never be able to drive/own a car. A garden tool or a knife. This list goes on and on.

 

[Foxtrapper]

I'm done with you. If you truly believed I meant children in previous posts and if you truly believe that someone who cannot be trusted with a gun can be trusted with a knife, then perhaps you are the mental deficient. That shouldn't have to be explained to you.

I suspect that isn't the case however but rather you pretend to not have understood that so you can continue defending your point.

Holy crap man!

This>I just do not agree with your stance on this. There are people who should have 2A rights, and there are those who should not. But, not having 2A rights shouldn't mean you are locked up for life..

Then that person should lose the ability to exercise ALL of his Rights found in the Bill of Rights!

They should never be able to drive/own a car. A garden tool or a knife. This list goes on and on.

Huh?

 

[Marine Cpl]

There are people who should have 2A rights, and there are those who should not.

That line of liberal thinking is a problem and the reason why we are in the situation we are in today.

But, not having 2A rights shouldn't mean you are locked up for life..

Again. How many times does it have to be explained to you that if you are too dangerous to handle a GUN because you might kill someone, you are ALSO too dangerous to handle a knife, baseball bat, or any object that could kill someone? This key point is what you fail to understand or simply ignore.

I think the problem you are having with the above statement is that you are including dangerous people with someone like a minor, someone being treated for non violent depression, or someone who walks along talking to himself in the same category as a violent person.

Those non violent people should not have their rights taken away unless they prove to be violent.

The key word in all this is violent. Why should a non violent person have his rights taken away? Just because you don't feel comfortable? What about the city yuppie who sees someone wearing a realtree jacket who says "ya'll" and "fuck" every 5 minutes with a permanent scowl on his face. Should he have his rights taken away even though he's never been violent to anyone?

 

[Arjuna]

Trump campaign fights to stop Michigan recount | New York Post

 

[Foxtrapper]

That line of liberal thinking is a problem and the reason why we are in the situation we are in today.

Really? That's pretty good, too bad it doesn't mean much. We're in this situation today because our government gutted our mental health system. We are in this situation today because people who clearly shouldn't have gun's had them. We are in this situation today because we failed to identify these people and prevent them from going through with their plans. We are in this situation today because some people don't understand the need to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would do harm. And the saddest part of this is we are in this situation because people closest to these types of people either won't or can't speak out and warn somebody. Don't talk to me about liberal thinking when the type of thinking you have is just as bad, except to the other extreme. The common goal should be to identify and stop these types of people, and I can certainly tell you it isn't by locking up anyone you deem to untrustworthy to carry a gun..


Again. How many times does it have to be explained to you that if you are too dangerous to handle a GUN because you might kill someone, you are ALSO too dangerous to handle a knife, baseball bat, or any object that could kill someone? This key point is what you fail to understand or simply ignore.


So you are ok with a person who is mentally ill having a weapon? That is the key point YOU fail to grasp or you simply ignore it. We know how that turns out with Sandy Hook, Aroura, and VA Tech to name a few.

I think the problem you are having with the above statement is that you are including dangerous people with someone like a minor, someone being treated for non violent depression, or someone who walks along talking to himself in the same category as a violent person.

I think you confuse the idea that someone mentally ill isn't dangerous if given a weapon..

Those non violent people should not have their rights taken away unless they prove to be violent.

I agree, but as I have explained before, it is not up to me. But having agreed that does not mean I trust them, or want them around me or my family. If you are ok with it then let them live in your town..

The key word in all this is violent. Why should a non violent person have his rights taken away? Just because you don't feel comfortable? What about the city yuppie who sees someone wearing a realtree jacket who says "ya'll" and "fuck" every 5 minutes with a permanent scowl on his face. Should he have his rights taken away even though he's never been violent to anyone?

Again, I am not the one who wanted to lock them up, that was you...People don't have to be violent to do stupid things. People get shot everyday by accident. Kids shoot other kids while showing off dad's loaded gun, people with mental illnesses don't always understand what a gun is and how it operates, even when shown repeatedly. There are people who shouldn't be armed. Regardless of rights or any other valid reason, they should not be armed, and as an adult, I understand that, I accept that. It's not always about fairness or rights. Many times it is about plain ole common sense, something that is sorely lacking these days..