The Second Amendment

[Always in His Presence]

There are plenty of successful societies, happier than ours, that have completely banned guns--snd the 1994 crime bill reduced crime by 23%.

If you ask some criminal justice reform activists, the 1994 crime law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, which was meant to reverse decades of rising crime, was one of the key contributors to mass incarceration in the 1990s. They say it led to more prison sentences, more prison cells, and more aggressive policing — especially hurting Black and brown Americans, who are disproportionately likely to be incarcerated.
​

And Joe has been trying to dodge that reality ever since.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Why do you expect attack? If our society is so dangerous that you need to be prepared for attack wherever you go there us a systemic problem that needs to be addressed--and too many armed people are contributing to that problem.

Do you have locks on the doors of your home? Is your neighborhood so dangerous that you need to be prepared for attack?

Do you have a Ring doorbell? Is your neighborhood so dangerous that you need to be prepared for attack?

How about camera's and security systems? Is your neighborhood so dangerous that you need to be prepared for attack?

Do you lock you car?

Too many ILLEGALLY armed people are the issue. Remove the legal right to keep and bear arms and only the law abiding citizens will be disarmed.

 

[Fantine]

If you ask some criminal justice reform activists, the 1994 crime law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, which was meant to reverse decades of rising crime, was one of the key contributors to mass incarceration in the 1990s. They say it led to more prison sentences, more prison cells, and more aggressive policing — especially hurting Black and brown Americans, who are disproportionately likely to be incarcerated.
​

And Joe has been trying to dodge that reality ever since.

Basically the states took that and ran with it. They built more and more prisons and passed even more onerous laws to promote incarceration.

60% of incarcerated people have not been convicted. They are awaiting trial and can't make bail. If you're poor, any bail is too high.

The Bail Project says that 95% of its suspects out on bail return for trial. They use a series of texts and contacts to remind them of their court appearance date, and it's successful.

Many states are experimenting with eliminating bail for people charged with lesser offenses because of the expense and human costs of keeping "suspects" incarcerated.

The human cost of imprisonment instead of bail? People might lose their jobs. Their children may go into foster care. Their families are disrupted.

But what is the taxpayer cost? What if we only had to imprison 40% of the people who are currently imprisoned by eliminating bail and using other ways to assure appearance in court--ankle bracelets, tracking, text reminders, etc.

Are suspects (non-convicted) rehabilitated by the time they spend in the prison system awaiting trial? Of course not. Do many who are sentenced have alternative sentencing (drug court, probation, etc.?)

Are many of these people who are warehoused people of color, the mentally ill?

This is another way that conservatives waste taxpayer dollars instead of trying less expensive programs that are more effective.

 

[Always in His Presence]

This is another way that conservatives waste taxpayer dollars instead of trying less expensive programs that are more effective.

The mass incarceration rate was not the highest in conservative states, but liberal.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

You want to lessen the criminal code, why not just do what cali wants to do… literally pay people $500 to not shoot people.

 

[miamited]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is no a right to bear arms for non-military purposes. It turns out that the trick is to just ignore the first thirteen words.

And you get (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls the first thirteen words (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) the prefatory clause.

Prefatory, I guess that means worthless.

The right had to do with military not the individuals right to bear arms

Hi paradox,

You are correct! But understanding and discerning what a group of people 300 years ago actually meant to say, in light of how future events have panned out, is an effort in futility. They aren't here. We can't ask them if they intended that passage to speak only and specifically about maintaining a 'well regulated militia'.

When our nation was founded there was no military army of the United States. In the days of 1776 America, allowing the citizens to be armed in case there should arise some foreign or domestic attack for which a 'well regulated militia' might be necessary, was how it was envisioned that we could protect ourselves, as a nation. Of course, everyone overlooks the term 'well regulated'. There is nothing well regulated about citizens ownership of firearms. In fact, if groups such as the NRA had their way, there would be 'no regulated'.

The forefathers also had no idea what firearms weaponry would become. In their day, weapons were loaded with ball or buckshot and powder and that process was eternally slow as compared to how fast we can pop off one round after another in literally a split second today.

I feel confident that if any of those men who wrote and approved our constitution were able to see what has become of our 'defining' of this passage and our current day weaponry, they would be the first ones on the bandwagon to stop the average person from owning a firearm. Todays ownership of firearms is neither 'well regulated' nor for the purpose of maintaining a national milita. Sadly, roughly 15,000 people lose their lives every year because of our ignorance. Man's heart is wicked!!!!! Who can know it?

BTW, I absolutely disagree with the reasoning of post #2. The constitution did not discuss firearms ownership to allow for the citizens to keep the United States government in check. Anyone who would even think to use firearms for such a purpose, needs a good reality check. Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians, et.al., offer adequate evidence that owning firearms isn't going to keep the United States government off your back. Trust me, the U.S. government is much, much better prepared to take down any citizen standoff and sadly because such groups use firearms to address their purposes, make it much more likely that they're going to die if they should think to imagine to do such a thing.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Aldebaran]

Why do you expect attack? If our society is so dangerous that you need to be prepared for attack wherever you go there us a systemic problem that needs to be addressed--and too many armed people are contributing to that problem.

The systemic problem of people getting lenient penalties when they commit crimes so that they're let back out on the streets certainly contributes to it. And when they riot and loot and commit arson, and then people like Kamala Harris raise money to bail them out and put them back on the street to do it again, that's a problem. Small wonder people want to arm and protect themselves more than ever.

Blacks are the targets in stand your ground cases 11 times more than whites, extending the systemic racism in our justice system to civilian vigilantes.

Maybe they should stop making themselves a target by instigating the attack that caused someone to have to stand their ground against them.

 

[Danthemailman]

You want to lessen the criminal code, why not just do what cali wants to do… literally pay people $500 to not shoot people.

I saw that on the news yesterday and thought it was a joke at first, but apparently, it's for real.

San Francisco will pay people to not shoot others: 'Cash for criminals'

 

[Aldebaran]

I saw that on the news yesterday and thought it was a joke at first, but apparently, it's for real.

San Francisco will pay people to not shoot others: 'Cash for criminals'

I thought it was a joke as well until I just clicked the link. I guess San Fransico must have extra money to spend. But if criminals are no longer prosecuted, such as the ones who bike into a Walgreens, empty the shelves, and then ride back out, then they'd probably get their $500 payment as well. Win, win!

 

[Paradox.79]

Hi paradox,

You are correct! But understanding and discerning what a group of people 300 years ago actually meant to say, in light of how future events have panned out, is an effort in futility. They aren't here. We can't ask them if they intended that passage to speak only and specifically about maintaining a 'well regulated militia'.

When our nation was founded there was no military army of the United States. In the days of 1776 America, allowing the citizens to be armed in case there should arise some foreign or domestic attack for which a 'well regulated militia' might be necessary, was how it was envisioned that we could protect ourselves, as a nation. Of course, everyone overlooks the term 'well regulated'. There is nothing well regulated about citizens ownership of firearms. In fact, if groups such as the NRA had their way, there would be 'no regulated'.

The forefathers also had no idea what firearms weaponry would become. In their day, weapons were loaded with ball or buckshot and powder and that process was eternally slow as compared to how fast we can pop off one round after another in literally a split second today.

I feel confident that if any of those men who wrote and approved our constitution were able to see what has become of our 'defining' of this passage and our current day weaponry, they would be the first ones on the bandwagon to stop the average person from owning a firearm. Todays ownership of firearms is neither 'well regulated' nor for the purpose of maintaining a national milita. Sadly, roughly 15,000 people lose their lives every year because of our ignorance. Man's heart is wicked!!!!! Who can know it?

BTW, I absolutely disagree with the reasoning of post #2. The constitution did not discuss firearms ownership to allow for the citizens to keep the United States government in check. Anyone who would even think to use firearms for such a purpose, needs a good reality check. Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians, et.al., offer adequate evidence that owning firearms isn't going to keep the United States government off your back. Trust me, the U.S. government is much, much better prepared to take down any citizen standoff and sadly because such groups use firearms to address their purposes, make it much more likely that they're going to die if they should think to imagine to do such a thing.

God bless,
Ted

Well the government and helicopters jets with missiles powerful enough to level a city, satellites in space that can spot us urinating in the woods. They have tanks and rocket launchers and a couple million of the best trained troops on the planet. These modern day gun nuts who think they could actually stop the government if it really wanted to take there freedom are delusional. My brother is retired seal and he has heard the gun nuts ( he is a gun owner and a supporter of common sense gun laws). He laughs because a small seal team could go into one of there NRA get togethers and kill all of them before they knew what was happened. So there argument to protect themselves against the a government does not hold water.

 

[Paradox.79]

Remove the legal right to keep and bear arms and only the law abiding citizens will be disarmed.

Do you know what is funny, that argument does not hold water, every country that has common sence gun laws...has less violent crime. Alot of countries have guns and common sence gun laws and gain less violent crime....google it. You NRA fans need come with REAL LEGITAMANT REASONS FOR NOT HAVING COMMON SENCE GUN LAWS.

 

[Paradox.79]

I've heard this argument being made in the past, and it came to mind when it was claimed that the Taliban (with it's run-down trucks, motorcycles, beat-up AKs, illiterate members) defeated not only the Soviet army, but now the American military. Now, unless the American military is going to use atomic bombs against American citizens on American soil, the American public with 400 million firearms actually has influence over a government if it should turn tyrannical.

Man you do not have enough people to do that. My brother is retired seal and he has heard the gun nuts ( he is a gun owner and a supporter of common sense gun laws). He laughs because a small seal team could go into one of NRA get togethers they could have a few hundred armed members and his team would kill all of them before they knew what was happened. So there argument to protect themselves against the a government does not hold water. And the difference between the Taliban and the average American is most of the middles east has been in a state of constant war for over 1000 years. Most Americans would not support the gun lobby if came down to a civil war. Every poll has shown that the majority does not support the gun lobby. They do not need nukes. They can spot them through a satellite and send a missle in to level were ever they are. My brother had a little war game using paintball guns against a bunch of gun nuts to prove a point...there were 12 of them and he made what would have been a fatal shot with real gun in every single one of them in less than an hour without one of them getting a shot in on him. If you can not figure out the difference between a trained solider and your average joe you need help

 

[FreeinChrist]

The mass incarceration rate was not the highest in conservative states, but liberal.

Not true.

List of U.S. states and territories by incarceration and correctional supervision rate - Wikipedia

Those are red states, though Georgia may be changing some.​

 

[Aldebaran]

Well the government and helicopters jets with missiles powerful enough to level a city, satellites in space that can spot us urinating in the woods. They have tanks and rocket launchers and a couple million of the best trained troops on the planet. These modern day gun nuts who think they could actually stop the government if it really wanted to take there freedom are delusional. My brother is retired seal and he has heard the gun nuts ( he is a gun owner and a supporter of common sense gun laws). He laughs because a small seal team could go into one of there NRA get togethers and kill all of them before they knew what was happened. So there argument to protect themselves against the a government does not hold water.

And yet, the same government you just talked about couldn't defeat the Taliban after 20 years. That's a fact. What you laid out is theoretical.

 

[Aldebaran]

Man you do not have enough people to do that. My brother is retired seal and he has heard the gun nuts ( he is a gun owner and a supporter of common sense gun laws). He laughs because a small seal team could go into one of NRA get togethers they could have a few hundred armed members and his team would kill all of them before they knew what was happened. So there argument to protect themselves against the a government does not hold water. And the difference between the Taliban and the average American is most of the middles east has been in a state of constant war for over 1000 years. Most Americans would not support the gun lobby if came down to a civil war. Every poll has shown that the majority does not support the gun lobby. They do not need nukes. They can spot them through a satellite and send a missle in to level were ever they are. My brother had a little war game using paintball guns against a bunch of gun nuts to prove a point...there were 12 of them and he made what would have been a fatal shot with real gun in every single one of them in less than an hour without one of them getting a shot in on him. If you can not figure out the difference between a trained solider and your average joe you need help

Many of the people you flame as "gun nuts" are former military and police, and are taking an interest in what is going on in this country because they've seen what is happening from the inside.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

And yet, the same government you just talked about couldn't defeat the Taliban after 20 years. That's a fact. What you laid out is theoretical.

what i find interesting is those same people have no explanation as to why we lost in afghanistan, yet destroying US citizens in a civil war would be so easy. I guess tanks and f15s only miss their targets in the middle east, but never miss on American soil.

 

[Aldebaran]

what i find interesting is those same people have no explanation as to why we lost in afghanistan, yet destroying US citizens in a civil war would be so easy. I guess tanks and f15s only miss their targets in the middle east, but never miss on American soil.

And our military would have to be out to slaughter its own citizens if they were using those things here. When the National Guard is called out, they are there to restore order. But if they started leveling buildings with tanks and fighter jets, they'd be proving to the public that they have turned against the people of this country and that would only persuade even more people to resist. However, I highly doubt that those in the military (our neighbors and relatives) would carry out orders to level buildings or entire cities here in America. They'd know it was obviously wrong.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

And our military would have to be out to slaughter its own citizens if they were using those things here. When the National Guard is called out, they are there to restore order. But if they started leveling buildings with tanks and fighter jets, they'd be proving to the public that they have turned against the people of this country and that would only persuade even more people to resist. However, I highly doubt that those in the military (our neighbors and relatives) would carry out orders to level buildings or entire cities here in America. They'd know it was obviously wrong.

its crazy how me and you see this from the exact same angle. *high five*

 

[Always in His Presence]

Not true.

List of U.S. states and territories by incarceration and correctional supervision rate - Wikipedia

View attachment 305371

Those are red states, though Georgia may be changing some.​

chart is from 2018. That is 24 years after the law was enacted. Do you have anything that is not two decades late?

 

[FreeinChrist]

chart is from 2018. That is 24 years after the law was enacted. Do you have anything that is not two decades late?

Mass incarceration developed in part from that bill in the 1990s. There wasn't the mass incarceration at the time of the bill as there is now, with all the private prisons that have been built.

As to what states had the highest number of prisoners in the early 90s- that depended on the size of the state as much as anything. California, New York and Texas had the most in total population and in their prisons. States with large cities rated up there.