I'm speechless after reading this thread. To know such savagery exists in the world, and is tolerated. This is clearly being made a racial issue. I can't imagine how the media would be foaming at the mouth if the races were reversed and a black child's murder were being gloated over in such a way. It wouldn't happen. If it did, the FBI would be there to arrest the white scum and charge them with hate crimes. This is so unfair and should never be allowed to happen. A simple bullet would be too good for these people. 

Glad to see Mr. Green back on the list with a date. I was rather upset when he was given a last-minute stay a couple years ago. 

Glad to see the site  up and running again.  Hope all are doing well... 

I have some sort of an answer but frankly I dare not even post it up here and it would be very painful. In the end there will be revolution in any case.

That's kinda what I'm thinking. Logically I know that things will never change through elections and such. How can they? These people have spent decades, if not centuries, stacking the deck in their favor. They didn't get their wealth and power by playing nice, and they won't give it up as long as they are breathing.

Instead of the usual blinding crop of copy and pastes, let's look at what is really happening.

Much has been made of those who make and those who take.

Since the 1970s, the standard of living of those who WORK for a living has not actually improved. The people who work are those who actually do the making BTW. Simply put, control of politics was transferred from the People to multinationals and oligarchs. They have become all powerful and do the TAKING. How do I see it so clearly? Well, my wife is one of them! Forget all the crap, just look at the facts. Politics is now the art of stealing from the People without them noticing it. Billionaire Mit Romney pays about 15% in tax. My wife and I pay 75% tax in France as we are in the top bracket. US politics is about grabbing more for those who have....... end of story. It is corrupt to the core.

Canadians are now far better off.

Frenchy, I hate to agree with you, but you're right on the mark. That is very much the system in the US and any country who follows our lead. Even in our 'ally' countries (i.e. 'democratic' places where we've effectively set up puppet governments) they follow the same system. The voters' minds are heavily influenced by the media and ruling classes. The common voter doesn't have a clue who or what they're voting for and the choices are limited. It's like saying "do you want yellow or red apples?"  They have the illusion that 'democracy' is so great as if it represents true freedom or choice when it's anything but. Not to mention the massive amount of voter fraud that occurs. What's the answer? I don't know. But what we're doing now certainly isn't working for the majority. However, it seems to be working great for the global elite. 

I'd feel a lot more safe with guns being legal if there weren't any gangs.

With all due respect, do you think gangs wouldn't still have guns if they were made illegal? And do you think that most gangs legally buy their guns now? I can answer both of these for you. Most gangs would still have guns whether the average law abiding citizen does or not.

Yea I would never live any where that only bad guys had guns....

DC?   

"Then what? We will go around the world and tell third world countries not to produce guns which might end up on our streets?"

Well, the US go around telling other countries just about everything else!

I am not against guns provided there is a strong reason to own one and strict screening. We travel everywhere with an armed person but then again we have the reason. How does a disaffected student manage to buy thousands of rounds of ammo. This is mad.

I don't have a problem with screening people when they buy guns. We do this anyway. Heck, when I first got may carry permit many moons ago, I had to submit myself to the most invasive screening process any law abiding person can imagine. Anyway, I won't argue that point at all.

As for the 6,000 rounds of ammo - so what? This is more sensationalism and media hype. I know guys who are professional shooters - International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) - who purchase and fire as many as 10,000 rounds of ammunition per week. In fact, just to become truly proficient and able to effectively handle a handgun, most would realistically need to fire thousands of rounds. Regardless, if a person is hellbent on causing destruction, he/she can easily do it with 50 rounds of ammunition from Wal-Mart. For me the amount of ammo is a non-issue. It's like asking why a car fanatic would have gallons and gallons of racing fuel - which could also be used to create weapons of terror.

If we were to disarm the law abiding populace today, then what? We would have to depend on the government to keep us safe? I don't have a lot of faith in that. The whole "to protect and serve" is pure PR. Law enforcement's job is just that - to enforce laws and arrest criminals. It's the right  responsibility of every person to protect their own life, property and family - not the cops. The Supreme Court has stated as much.

Keep in mind that protecting oneself from a tyrannical government is also one of the main principles behind the right to bear arms. 

I agree with Frenchy on this one. There are way too many idiots and incompetent people to be trusted with guns. Besides which, do we really want to let these gangs have all these guns?

The problem with that is that if you make guns illegal, do you still expect that people who are criminals by nature to follow those laws? Then what? We will go around the world and tell third world countries not to produce guns which might end up on our streets? Studies have shown that (speaking for the US) gun restrictions have an opposite effect on crime. There are far too many in circulation and the demand is too high. Criminals will always have access to guns, as long as they can afford them. Making firearms illegal will only insure that law abiding citizens are helpless to defend themselves  from criminals who will still have access to guns.

Makes me wonder what or whom was behind this person. I won't spread any conspiracy theories, but this person has been linked to several anti-social groups who may or may not have funding. The moment I heard about the incident, I turned on CNN. The first thing I heard was some political commentator talking about and pushing gun control.

Swimming pool deaths kill more people annually than guns. So do cigarettes and alcohol. Not to mention useless wars for corporate and political interests. But as always, gun ownership is targeted. Were lead to believe that you just never know when someone is going to 'snap' and kill a bunch of innocent people. But hey, it wont happen without guns. Sorry. That argument doesn't hold water. For one, guns are inanimate objects. They have no intentions, no motives.   Despite the media and politicians saying they are the "Devil's tools" they have no soul. They only do what they are directed to do. They're no more evil than a car which is being used to murder innocent  people. While I categorically agree that many people are too stupid to own guns, it shouldn't restrict the rest of us from doing so.

Captain, I think you are suffering from paranoi as yet again, your post does not read right to me. I suspect you should be seeking medical help rather than thinking about shooting someone.

I think he's talking out his arse for the sake of mental and emotional masturbation, but to err on the side of caution I'd agree with this advice. If anyone is considering vigilante style shooting. please discuss it with someone who is trained to deal with such impulses and issues... 

Yes. Again, taking life is not something to be cheered. But, in some cases it should and must be done. Some of these questions are no-brainers....

Folks, I've said it before: Hank Skinner is scum, but he's simply a convenient poster child for the abolitionists.  I think if Wifeaux had an honest bone in her body, she'd be the first to admit it.  As soon as he's worm food, there will be another.  She'll probably marry him

This is exactly why I have zero respect for 90% of abolitionists. It's one thing to oppose the death penalty, it's quite another to outright lie and imply that every convicted murderer facing execution is actually innocent. Any right thinking person can spend a few hours and read the facts of Hank's case and conclude that he's guilty. I don't believe for a second that Sandrine, who happens to be an educated and arguably intelligent woman, hasn't come to that same conclusion. She simply doesn't care, and will lie her A$$ off to save a multiple-murderer, with little thought or sympathy for the TRUE victims - The Busby Family. 

The ruling, which focused on technical issues related to carrying out an execution, didn't address whether death was a legal form of punishment in Arkansas and isn't expected to permanently do away with the penalty.

No, but we all know the DP is under attack here. Arkansas' DP and justice system have turned into a joke anyway. Some of those guys have been sitting there for decades. Guys like Jack Jones Jr. should have been executed years ago. And don't even get me started on Damian Echols...

Quote from: Hangman1981 on June 25, 2012, 08:45:40 AM

The Death Penalty DOES deter crime, because scumbags fear death over life.

I believe the studies have shown that scumbags don't think that far ahead.  However, I've never thought a deterrent effect was as important as the inability of the dead scumbag to commit more crimes.

Scumbags either don't think that far ahead, or are arrogant/ignorant enough to think they won't get caught. Whether or not it deters crime is a moot point in my book. It still protects society by permanently and irreversibly taking away the offender's ability harm another person in the future. For me, that's already enough. Not to mention that it gives the victims' families some sense of justice.