Why the NRA don't want any gun bans
Realist
had Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and other countries as
buffers against the expected invasion by the West. In an even of war, if
the West could be held to those countries, they would never get at Russia.
In the same way, the NRA knows that if you give up legal assault weapons,
or small, conceilable handguns, the next thing the anti-gun liberals will
want are the normal handguns, the rifles and the shotguns. So, even if
banning assault weapons and mandatory background checks and wait times
probably makes sense on one level, I don't blame the NRA for fighting that
ban, because they know it is only the thin edge of the anti-gun liberal
wedge.
I would get Congress and the Senate to vote on an amendment to the
constitution saying that if assualt weapons are banned from private
ownership and that background checks and wait-times were mandatory, that
would be the end of it, they would never go after any other kind of gun or
try to enforce any other kind of exclusionary provision. At the same time,
the use of a gun in a criminal act should net a person a sentence without
parole for at least 15 years.
Neolibertarian
Realist <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
You're not going to prevent crime with gun controls.
Banning the sale of assault rifles and extended magazines doesn't
confiscate the millions already in the possession of millions of
Americans (legally and illegally).
Besides, with a little electrician's tape, you can band several smaller
clips together, making reload time almost instant. You can theoretically
turn any semi-automatic firearm into an "assault weapon."
Long prison sentences can lower crime statistics, but at what price?
First of all, there's nothing logical about imprisoning anyone. It only
"fits the crime" because some bureaucrats have arbitrarily decided it
that way--and from year to year they keep changing their minds about how
many years is "appropriate" for which crimes. Secondly, it's expensive
to imprison 3 million people, and meeting their humanitarian needs will
make prison seem to many inmates not nearly as bad as living "free" in
the poverty and anarchy of the ghetto.
Punishing gun crimes appropriately is the only reasonable, long term
approach. But, of course, Mrs. Grundy would never have the stomach for
it.
--
Neolibertarian
"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan
Chom Noamsky
> the general public had to be armed to thwart a perceived invasion where
> there hasn't been any provocation?
> I don't know what you are doing in Can.politics because Canadians have
> no say over the Senate or Congress. You are demonstrating the hate and
> fear-mongering that Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik was talking
> about after the Arizona shooting. From my vantage point, I would never
> want to be an American citizen when I see all the hate and intolerance
> in the U.S. It is very similar to pre-WW2 Germany.
> Go ahead, arm everyone to shoot whomever they don't like. That will
> guarantee that the U.S. will never be attacked. Who wants to control of
> a country of nut-bars?
On the other hand, who wants to live in a country that forces everyone
to be 100% dependent on police for personal security. Especially when
police do not have a legal duty to save your life or actually do
anything to keep you safe. Especially when seconds count and police are
only minutes away. Self defense is an inherent natural right of all
people, a state that limits this right by limiting the tools a "nanny
state". And if you hate guns you should also demand the criminalization
of rights like abortion and gay marriage, or any other matter that
involves individual judgment and discretion. Do you really believe only
government can make your decisions for you?
On the bright side people have had their fill of gun control. The
Democrats have actually become somewhat conducive to expanding gun
rights. In Canada the trend is similar:
Patriot Games
>It's akin to the old Soviet Union and their buffer countries. The Soviets
>had Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and other countries as
>buffers against the expected invasion by the West. In an even of war, if
>the West could be held to those countries, they would never get at Russia.
>In the same way, the NRA knows that if you give up legal assault weapons,
>or small, conceilable handguns, the next thing the anti-gun liberals will
>want are the normal handguns, the rifles and the shotguns. So, even if
>banning assault weapons
We "banned" "assault weapons" LONG before the Clitonistas came up with
that stupid idea... The only definition of "assault weapon" that
makes any sense is 'Automatic" or 'Machine Gun.' And since about
forever they've been heavily restricted...
But your point is meaningful given that all DemocRATs are liars and if
you give them an inch they'll eventually get the whole mile.
>and mandatory background checks
The problem with background checks is they represent a false sense of
security. Back in the day a background check was basically Do your
neighbors know, like and trust you? Yes? Go get a gun. No? Go take
a long hike, don't come back, if you do we'll bury you...
If a person commits a crime SO BAD we don't trust them with a gun why
do we trust them to even be among us in society?
>and wait times
More false security...
>I would get Congress and the Senate to vote on an amendment to the
>constitution saying that if assualt weapons are banned from private
>ownership and that background checks and wait-times were mandatory, that
>would be the end of it, they would never go after any other kind of gun or
>try to enforce any other kind of exclusionary provision.
The 2nd Amendment makes perfecrly good sense exactly like it is and
was meant to be.
>At the same time,
>the use of a gun in a criminal act should net a person a sentence without
>parole for at least 15 years.
In Florida we have 10-20-Life.
- Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or
attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or
destructive device.
- Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is
discharged.
- Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed.
- Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by
a felon.
- Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively
to any other term of imprisonment imposed.
It's been extremely effective: "10-20-LIFE has helped to drive down
Florida's violent-gun crime rates by 30%. The state's 2004, "Index
Crime" rate is now the lowest in 34 years, and the violent crime rate
is the lowest in a quarter century."
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/
Note the last provision. It doesn't matter how soft or bought-off the
Judge is, if the bad guy fires a gun then that bad guy goes away for
20 and that's GUARANTEED.
--
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame�!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
1/15/11: Clipboard Manager v3.x! (Still FREE!)
Greatly improved, now supports Archiving, Tools, etc!
FREE Windows� Screensavers! Muzzy Screensaver, 15Mb; DemocRAT Screensaver, 18Mb!
FREE Windows� Gadgets! Including: Bumpersticker Slideshow, Obama
Cartoon Slideshow, Take Back America 2010 & 2012!, Are DemocRATs
Ugly?, Is Helen Thomas Ugly?, Is Nancy Pelosi Ugly?, Disco Muzzy
(1 & 2)!, Obama's Lies!, "Uh-Oh! Something's Burning!", and the
Racial Slur Database.
Learn the TRUTH about: BSWS, Bob LeChevalier, Bret Cahill, Brian Wraith,
Chom Noamsky, Clams Casino, Cop Welfare, Curly Surmudgeon, Dakota,
Dave Fritzinger, David Johnston, Freestyle, Gandalf Grey, Iarnrod,
Igor, Joe Steel, Juanjo, Kevin Cunningham, Kurt Lochner, Lorad,
Lamont Cranston, Lookout, Lickin Ass' and Fakin' Names, Malcolm Abel,
Lubow, Major Debacle, Michael Coburn, Mitchel Holman, Phlip, Peter
Principle, Ramon Herrera, Ramrod, Ray Fischer, Rightardia, RobW, Rod
Speed, Roneal, Sanders Kaufman, Scotius, Sid9, SilentOtto, Siobhan
Medeiros, Snakehawk, Spike Lee, Stile4aly, Tab182, Tater Gumfries,
Tim Crowley, Tim Howard, Tom Sr.
Chom Noamsky
>> and mandatory background checks
>
> The problem with background checks is they represent a false sense of
> security. Back in the day a background check was basically Do your
> neighbors know, like and trust you? Yes? Go get a gun. No? Go take
> a long hike, don't come back, if you do we'll bury you...
Well, at least we know now why "Bob Milby" aka "Buster Norris" aka
"Patriot Gaymes" can never legally own a gun.
SaPeIsMa
news:c02a5$4d3b2d14$18f556a5$14...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> Long prison sentences can lower crime statistics, but at what price?
> First of all, there's nothing logical about imprisoning anyone.
Yes there is
It segregates the criminal from the law-abiding population and thus reduces
the probability of creating more victims
That's as logical as one can get.
> It only "fits the crime" because some bureaucrats have arbitrarily
> decided it that way--
Nope
Were that true, then the concept would not have stood up the test of time
> and from year to year they keep changing their minds about how
> many years is "appropriate" for which crimes. Secondly, it's expensive
> to imprison 3 million people, and meeting their humanitarian needs will
> make prison seem to many inmates not nearly as bad as living "free" in
> the poverty and anarchy of the ghetto.
>
Trouble with that claim is that there is NO CAUSATIVE surpport for the claim
that poverty causes crime.
On the other hand there are individuals who are unable to live within even
the simplest constraints of society to avoid predation of others
The rest of society does have the right to segregate such individuals for
their own safety.
> Punishing gun crimes appropriately is the only reasonable, long term
> approach. But, of course, Mrs. Grundy would never have the stomach for
> it.
>
The very concept of "gun crime" is an false concept for the gullible and the
gun-controllers
If assault is a crime, it doesn't matter if it's committed with a gun or a
ball-peen hammer. It's still an assault
To argue that the crime is somehow worse or not, because a gun was used
instead of something else, just plays into the hands of the gun-control
crowd
If you assault somebody, I don't really care what you use to do it.
The crime is STILL assault.
nomine@cda.ca mutato nomine
nomine@cda.ca mutato nomine
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
Neolibertarian
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c02a5$4d3b2d14$18f556a5$14...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> >
> > Long prison sentences can lower crime statistics, but at what price?
> > First of all, there's nothing logical about imprisoning anyone.
>
> Yes there is
> It segregates the criminal from the law-abiding population and thus reduces
> the probability of creating more victims
> That's as logical as one can get.
No, that's as /pragmatic/ as one can get.
There's no logical basis for removing anyone from society, unless you're
afraid of that individual.
If you fear "criminals" because you believe they're smarter than you,
then maybe they're the ones who should stay on the outside. If you fear
they're more powerful than you, well, so is a lion. Lions aren't really
a danger to humans--they just /seem/ to be.
You put "criminals" away in prison, not because you wish to right a
wrong, but because you think a criminal is somehow not quite as human as
you. Not as able to see the benefit of following the rules as you. Not
as able to function in society as you.
...That there is no hope for someone who egregiously breaks the law.
...That criminals are "human debris."
> > It only "fits the crime" because some bureaucrats have arbitrarily
> > decided it that way--
>
> Nope
> Were that true, then the concept would not have stood up the test of time
It really hasn't "stood the test of time" in the sense you assume.
Prisons were first built to house suspected criminals until they could
be tried and punished. They retained that function until relatively
recently.
Then, somehow, the imprisonment, itself, became the punishment. Mostly
because you either didn't have the heart to punish anyone, or because
you realized that sweeping the human debris under the rug actually
already solved the problem from your perspective.
Why bother with anything else?
> > and from year to year they keep changing their minds about how
> > many years is "appropriate" for which crimes. Secondly, it's expensive
> > to imprison 3 million people, and meeting their humanitarian needs will
> > make prison seem to many inmates not nearly as bad as living "free" in
> > the poverty and anarchy of the ghetto.
> >
>
> Trouble with that claim is that there is NO CAUSATIVE surpport for the claim
> that poverty causes crime.
That wasn't the claim, silly.
The claim was, prisoners who come from the ghetto can actually feel more
safe, more at home, more secure in their daily lives within a prison
environment, rather than at "home" in the ghetto.
Once you figure out the ropes in prison, you can lead your life without
too much trouble. Three squares, haircut every month, clean sheets on
the bed. Doctor there for when you get sick. You even get a job to keep
you busy. You figure out who to avoid, what to say when confronted. You
make friends, and they stay your friends for many years, and help watch
your back. Sometimes you even make friends with the guards.
You don't get any of that in the ghetto, and in the slums you never know
where it's gonna come at you. The police. The rival gangs. The stray
predator. Your own brother might even rob you. They're all out there to
get you, one way or another. But you can't predict any of it. You're
never safe. Never sure.
In prison, you can predict. It's controlled.
> On the other hand there are individuals who are unable to live within even
> the simplest constraints of society to avoid predation of others
> The rest of society does have the right to segregate such individuals for
> their own safety.
They don't have the "right," of course. They have the /strength/ to
enforce their will on the few.
>
> > Punishing gun crimes appropriately is the only reasonable, long term
> > approach. But, of course, Mrs. Grundy would never have the stomach for
> > it.
> >
>
> The very concept of "gun crime" is an false concept for the gullible and the
> gun-controllers
Not really.
> If assault is a crime, it doesn't matter if it's committed with a gun or a
> ball-peen hammer. It's still an assault
> To argue that the crime is somehow worse or not, because a gun was used
> instead of something else, just plays into the hands of the gun-control
> crowd
> If you assault somebody, I don't really care what you use to do it.
> The crime is STILL assault.
I'm trained in the martial arts. You come at me with a hammer or a
knife, you're the one who's in trouble. If you come at me with a gun,
there are gambits I can try, but none with any high chance of success,
especially if you're fully willing to pull the trigger in the first
place.
Any gun crime involves a mortal threat. Always. Hence it's a more
serious crime.
Buster Norris
<blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
>On 1/22/2011 12:23 PM, Patriot Games wrote:
>
>>> and mandatory background checks
>>
>> The problem with background checks is they represent a false sense of
>> security. Back in the day a background check was basically Do your
>> neighbors know, like and trust you? Yes? Go get a gun. No? Go take
>> a long hike, don't come back, if you do we'll bury you...
>
>Well, at least we know now why "Bob Milby"
Proof??????????????????????
> aka "Buster Norris"
Proof??????????????????????
> aka "Patriot Gaymes"
Proof??????????????????????
>can never legally own a gun.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buster Norris
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:28:14 GMT, Chom Noamsky <m...@eatmoose.yum>
wrote:
>On 4/15/2010 1:22 PM, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:47:11 GMT, Choad Noamsky<m...@eatmoose.yum>
>> wrote:
>>> ... but not for this gang. They enter the owner's house without consent
>>> then threaten her when she gets in their faces about it. Warrant? We
>>> don't need no stinkin' warrant. Identification? We don't need no
>>> stinkin' identification. America is fucked and the Bush regime did this
>>> to you. Don't y'all feel more safe and secure in your own homes now?
>>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=621_1270344144
>> I feel very secure in my home, Canadian Faggot.
>> But that's none of your business, Canadian Faggot.
>> From: Chom Noamsky<m...@eatmoose.yum>
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.179.48.237
>> 142.179.48.237 = Kamloops, Canada.
>Every time you post my location it's different... Victoria, Salmon Arm,
>Kamloops, Kelowna, etc.
Really? Let's find out:
From: "Chom Noamsky" <ba...@dogg.comm>
From: "Chom Noamsky" <ch...@tasybbqparty.comm>
From: Chom Noamsky <ba...@grrrr.arf>
From: Chom Noamsky <b...@beef.yumyumyum>
From: Chom Noamsky <d...@bark.grrrr>
From: Chom Noamsky <m...@eatmoose.yum>
From: Patriot Games <Pat...@america.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.179.48.237
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:18:10 -0400
Message-ID: <q8bkq5d18tc14ofb0...@4ax.com>
Nope, SAME IP address, INCLUDING at least one attempt at impersonating
me...
BUSTED!
And THEN we have:
From: "Chom Noamsky" <e...@chicken.commm>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.179.53.43
142.179.53.43 = Kamloops, Canada.
Nope... SAME PLACE....
YOU LIED.
>It proves that you are incompetent at IP
>geolocation... which is the one and only skill you seem to have...
>ahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
I have a few other skills....
Such as:
Shall we find out where your IP is? Yes, let's do that:
Royal Inland Hospital,
311 Columbia St, Kamloops, V2C 2T1
BC, Canada
Ph: (250) 374-5111
Toll Free: 1-877-288-5688
Fax: (250) 314-2333
Did you know:
ONE IN FOUR PATIENTS WAIT OVER A YEAR FOR MEDICALLY NECESSARY SURGERY
AT ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL
March 12, 2010
"Wait times bound to increase because of Interior Health Authority's
failure to prevent surgical tool contamination"
http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/one-four-patients-wait-over-year-%C2%A0-medically-necessary-surgery-royal-inland-hospital
I wonder if your vile anti-American posting on the Internet is hurting
medical care at the hospital?
I wonder if your employers know you're posting vile anti-American crap
on the Internet when you're supposed to be working?
They do now...
===< Update! >========================
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:16:20 GMT, Chom Noamsky <m...@eatmoose.yum>
wrote:
>there is a
>little something called VPN (Virtual Private Networking), which means I
>could have an public IP from just about anywhere in the world.
Why do lying DemocRATs and Canadian Faggots immediately resort to
BLUFFING when you get caught?
No, Canadian Faggot, that is NOT how a VPN works.
You're too STUPID to figure it out but maybe somebody else might be
interested, this is a good intro:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/vpn.htm
Note that in your Header BOTH your "NNTP-Posting-Host" and "X-Trace"
entries contain the SAME IP ADDRESS:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.179.48.237
X-Trace: edtnps82 1271456180 142.179.48.237 (Fri, 16 Apr 2010)
Note that your Path contains:
Path:
nntp.giganews.com!
news.glorb.com!
newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!
newsfeed.telus.net!
edtnps82.POSTED!
"edtnps82" is a Host for "telus.net" which means your IP
"142.179.48.237" was put in your Header BY THE SERVER that you
connected to...
No, you DO NOT HAVE a "public IP from just about anywhere in the
world."
You have an IP from the block designated for the Royal Inland
Hospital, Kamloops, BC, Canada.
Period. NO EXCEPTIONS.
While the hospital WHERE YOU WORK may have a VPN the server YOU
CONNECTED TO doesn't know that, it ONLY KNOWS WHERE YOU CONNECTED
FROM.
You connected from: the Royal Inland Hospital, Kamloops, BC, Canada.
You're FOUND.
===< Update! >========================
On Fri, 14 May 2010 03:31:46 GMT, Chom Noamsky <e...@elk.burgers>
wrote:
>Message-ID: <Cu3Hn.3929$Z6.2838@edtnps82>
>On 5/13/2010 3:01 PM, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 11:32:45 -0400, "M I Wakefield"
>> <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_birth_certificate_2
>> America to Canadian Faggots:
>> Shut the fuck up and mind your own business.
>What ya gonna do about it, print our IP addresses?
>Ahahahahahahahahahaah!!!!
Well, well, well...
Lookie who's NOT posting from WORK...
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
From: Chom Noamsky <e...@elk.burgers>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.179.48.237
Host: chachacha.qwertyious.com
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Buster Norris
On Thu, 20 May 2010 23:15:17 GMT, Chom Noamsky <e...@elk.burgers>
wrote:
>Message-ID: <9ojJn.4320$Z6.3325@edtnps82>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.179.49.223
>On 5/20/2010 4:04 PM, M I Wakefield wrote:
>
>> At least I assume it's his ... nobody who didn't own it would pimp something
>> that sad.
>
>Amateur world quality for sure, but definitely looks to be his going by
>the contacts page. Now that I know his domain I'm going to give him a
>taste of his own medicine.
=================
My Domain:
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
=================
Full Header:
Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news-in-02.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!edtnps82.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail
From: Chom Noamsky <e...@elk.burgers>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
can.politics,alt.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.society.liberalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Patriot Games is obsessed with persecuting my identity
References: <RyYIn.4586$z%6.2590@edtnps83>
<uquav59df09e2laf2...@4ax.com>
<ZSfJn.4305$Z6.2233@edtnps82>
<IcgJn.220512$214....@unlimited.newshosting.com>
<ffgJn.4311$Z6.1379@edtnps82>
<nejJn.177787$pO2....@unlimited.newshosting.com>
In-Reply-To: <nejJn.177787$pO2....@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <9ojJn.4320$Z6.3325@edtnps82>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:15:17 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.179.49.223
X-Trace: edtnps82 1274397317 142.179.49.223 (Thu, 20 May 2010 17:15:17
MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:15:17 MDT
Bytes: 1596
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5503629
alt.society.liberalism:2675326 alt.politics.liberalism:1996503
alt.politics:5424346 can.politics:1999535
=================
Original Full Header Message from Google:
http://groups.google.com/group/can.politics/msg/54fd214ec92f8c77?hl=en&dmode=source
Or: http://tinyurl.com/35dqmr8
=================
Original Message from Google:
http://groups.google.com/group/can.politics/msg/54fd214ec92f8c77?hl=en
Or: http://tinyurl.com/3xgb6me
=================
Complete Thread (All Posts in Thread) from Google:
Or: http://tinyurl.com/2vhh2zh
=================
Changing a Server's Name:
http://geomaplookup.net/?ip=142.179.49.223
Shows 142.179.49.223
changed to "patriot.games-is-dumber-than-a-sack-of-hammers.com"
http://www.hostip.info/index.html
Buster Norris
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:46:30 GMT, Chom Noamsky <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote:
>Crap Detector wrote:
>> Liberals attempt to equate the so-called "birthers" with "truthers" like
>> Rosie O'Donnell and
>> Bill Maher, but there is no comparison. The former are very rational
>> whereas the latter are nuts,
>> like Canadian Marxist, dingbat David Deilley, and the idiot leftist
>> "Remailer", who also posts
>> rants under aliases such a Crap Detector.
>> You can read about Palin's sensible position on Obama's eligibility below:
> From your link:
>"After Humphries' interview, however, Palin posted a message on her
>Facebook page under the banner 'Stupid conspiracies,' clarifying that
>she has not and will not press the issue of the president's eligibility."
Oops! Canadian Faggot caught LYING!
"But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent
interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth
certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States."
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/stupid-conspiracies/188707498434
You said Palin said she "will not press the issue of the president's
eligibility."
YOU LIED.
Buster Norris
Courtesy of Buster Norris:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:39:55 GMT, Chom Noamsky <e...@elk.burgers>
wrote:
>Message-ID: <%wCLn.5233$z%6.4562@edtnps83>
>Canada's liberal sex education is devastating America's conservative
>abstinence-only folly.
LIAR!!!!!!
>Not only are teen pregnancies considerably lower
>in Canada, the teen abortion rate is substantially lower. And the myth
>that comprehensive sex education causes teen promiscuity can finally be
>crammed back down the throats of abstinence-only promoters.
>Now watch social conservatives go apeshit trying to spin the terrible
>consequences of their criminal ignorance:
>
>http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/27/despite-stereotype-of-of-over-sexed-youth-teen-pregnancy-down-36/
Canadians are lying faggots...........
US negro teen pregnancy decline: 45% (126.3 in 2006).
US beaner teen pregnancy decline: 26% (126.6 in 2006).
US white teen pregnancy decline: 50% (44.0 in 2006).
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf
Canadian teen pregnancy decline: 36.9% (27.9 in 2006).
http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=3072660
Best rate of decline? America's..........
HAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buster Norris
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:31:13 GMT, Chom Noamsky <d...@bark.grrrr> wrote:
>The party of inclusivity demonstrates how exclusive it is once again.
>No wonder the GOP is such a mess, it has become exclusive to the point
>that only radicals and fanatics can belong:
>http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144789/gay_gop_group_co-sponsors_conservative_political_conference%2C_but_not_allowed_to_speak_at_it/
Oops! The FAGGOT Choad Noamsky Caught LYING, again:
Lisa De Pasquale, the director of CPAC "After talking with their
leadership and reviewing their website, I am satisfied that they do
not represent a “radical leftist agenda,” as some have stated, and
should not be rejected as a CPAC cosponsor."
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/16/goproud-at-cpac-creates-controversy-calls-for-boycotts/
David Keene, chief of the American Conservative Union "[GOProud] "has
signed on as a CPAC co-sponsor, but will have no speakers and we told
them that, in fact, since opposition to gay marriage, etc are
consensus positions (if not unanimous) among conservatives, these
topics are not open to debate."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119848
Buster Norris
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:02:06 GMT, Chom Noamsky <m...@eatmoose.yum>
wrote:
>On 3/11/2010 11:28 AM, clay wrote:
>> This free trade agreement evolved out of the FTA between Canada and
>> the U.S. which goes back to 1987
>> when Brian Mulroney was Canada's PM and Ronald Reagan president of the
>> U.S. Mulroney's Conservatives fought an election over it in 1988. It
>> was fiercely opposed by Canada's Liberals and
>> NDP socialists. Mulroney won and the rest in history. He later
>> proposed to Reagan that the free trade agreement be enlarged to
>> include Mexico. Reagan agreed and thus NATA was created.
>> Reagan left office without getting NAFTA ratified by Congress but when
>> Newt Gingrich became House speaker and with a Republican majority
>> Congress ratified the agreement and Clinton signed it into law.
>The result: incomes and purchasing power declined for us all, except for
>the top income earners who were already doing okay...
Oops! Caught LYING:
National average wage indexing series
1993 23,132.67
1994 23,753.53
1995 24,705.66
1996 25,913.90
1997 27,426.00
1998 28,861.44
1999 30,469.84
2000 32,154.82
2001 32,921.92
2002 33,252.09
2003 34,064.95
2004 35,648.55
2005 36,952.94
2006 38,651.41
2007 40,405.48
2008 41,334.97
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html
Since NAFTA the National Average Wage has increased 79%
YOU LIED.
Buster Norris
[Courtesy of Buster Norris]
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:50:49 -0800, Chom Noamksy
<blah...@blahblah.blah> wrote:
>Human development is a much better model for measuring the success of
>states. Income alone is far too simplistic to rely on for any kind of
>meaningful benchmark. Little Liechtenstein ranks lower in human
>development than Canada or the US.
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 Norway 0.938
2 Australia 0.937
3 New Zealand 0.907
4 United States 0.902
5 Ireland 0.895
6 Liechtenstein 0.891
7 Netherlands 0.890
8 Canada 0.888
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
Liechtenstein SHITS on Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> then maybe they're the ones who should stay on the outside. If you fear
> they're more powerful than you, well, so is a lion. Lions aren't really
> a danger to humans--they just /seem/ to be.
reasons why they've been hunted to extinction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4160676.stm
If you've ever seen them take down an elephant...You know they're not
to be fucked with.
Chom Noamsky
Boy, can I EVER get under your skin.
Tee-hee!
Chom Noamsky
> In article<4b6dnZ0hVtY12abQ...@bright.net>,
> "SaPeIsMa"<SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Neolibertarian"<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c02a5$4d3b2d14$18f556a5$14...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>>>
>>> Long prison sentences can lower crime statistics, but at what price?
>>> First of all, there's nothing logical about imprisoning anyone.
>>
>> Yes there is
>> It segregates the criminal from the law-abiding population and thus reduces
>> the probability of creating more victims
>> That's as logical as one can get.
>
> No, that's as /pragmatic/ as one can get.
>
> There's no logical basis for removing anyone from society, unless you're
> afraid of that individual.
Eh? Violent criminals typically don't have a problem with infringing
upon the rights of others. Deliberately harm someone and you've
violated one or more of that person's basic human rights. In a
libertarian society individual rights are sacred, violate them and the
consequences must be fitting of the violation. It's totally logical to
deny a violator further opportunities to victimize, until they can
demonstrate a genuine respect for the rights of others.
> If you fear "criminals" because you believe they're smarter than you,
> then maybe they're the ones who should stay on the outside. If you fear
> they're more powerful than you, well, so is a lion. Lions aren't really
> a danger to humans--they just /seem/ to be.
People fear having their basic rights and freedoms violated. Criminals
are generally the ones doing that.
> You put "criminals" away in prison, not because you wish to right a
> wrong, but because you think a criminal is somehow not quite as human as
> you.
No, we put criminals away because they have demonstrated disregard for
the humanity of others.
> Not as able to see the benefit of following the rules as you. Not
> as able to function in society as you.
>
> ...That there is no hope for someone who egregiously breaks the law.
>
> ...That criminals are "human debris."
If that were true then we'd do away with jail and start chopping off
hands and heads. We don't do that because the modern day focus is on
reform, at least in Canada is it (for the most part).
>>> It only "fits the crime" because some bureaucrats have arbitrarily
>>> decided it that way--
>>
>> Nope
>> Were that true, then the concept would not have stood up the test of time
>
> It really hasn't "stood the test of time" in the sense you assume.
>
> Prisons were first built to house suspected criminals until they could
> be tried and punished. They retained that function until relatively
> recently.
Right, back when the judgment was either freedom or death.
> Then, somehow, the imprisonment, itself, became the punishment. Mostly
> because you either didn't have the heart to punish anyone, or because
> you realized that sweeping the human debris under the rug actually
> already solved the problem from your perspective.
>
> Why bother with anything else?
That might be true in the US. In more liberal societies the philosophy
is focused on the corrections. I have a friend who manages the largest
private prison in North America. His take is that roughly 1/3 are
completely beyond any kind of reform. And it's due to a sad fact:
victims of maladies like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Drug Syndrome
are hugely over-represented in the prison population. These people are
born into the world disadvantaged in the worst way, sometimes with
severely crippled cognitive abilities. They do not understand the
concept of consequences like a normal human does. You might say the
criminals are the mothers and fathers, but then they were probably the
victims of circumstance themselves, and so on and so on. In the end the
cause can only be described as a general social failure.
>>> and from year to year they keep changing their minds about how
>>> many years is "appropriate" for which crimes. Secondly, it's expensive
>>> to imprison 3 million people, and meeting their humanitarian needs will
>>> make prison seem to many inmates not nearly as bad as living "free" in
>>> the poverty and anarchy of the ghetto.
>>>
>>
>> Trouble with that claim is that there is NO CAUSATIVE surpport for the claim
>> that poverty causes crime.
>
> That wasn't the claim, silly.
>
> The claim was, prisoners who come from the ghetto can actually feel more
> safe, more at home, more secure in their daily lives within a prison
> environment, rather than at "home" in the ghetto.
>
> Once you figure out the ropes in prison, you can lead your life without
> too much trouble. Three squares, haircut every month, clean sheets on
> the bed. Doctor there for when you get sick. You even get a job to keep
> you busy. You figure out who to avoid, what to say when confronted. You
> make friends, and they stay your friends for many years, and help watch
> your back. Sometimes you even make friends with the guards.
>
> You don't get any of that in the ghetto, and in the slums you never know
> where it's gonna come at you. The police. The rival gangs. The stray
> predator. Your own brother might even rob you. They're all out there to
> get you, one way or another. But you can't predict any of it. You're
> never safe. Never sure.
>
> In prison, you can predict. It's controlled.
In my neck of the Canadian woods a common play was to commit a petty
crime just to get into a minimum security institution for the winter.
Three squares a day, pool table, warm bed, and hanging out with your
buddies on the gov't dime. Sixth months later it's spring and funtime
on the outside. About a decade ago many of the minimum security
institutions got shut down, with the demand taken up by double bunking
in medium security institutions. After that a lot of "seasonal" inmates
decided it wasn't worth the gamble because medium security institutions
can have actual BAD PEOPLE you might have to bunk with.
>
>> On the other hand there are individuals who are unable to live within even
>> the simplest constraints of society to avoid predation of others
>> The rest of society does have the right to segregate such individuals for
>> their own safety.
>
> They don't have the "right," of course. They have the /strength/ to
> enforce their will on the few.
You got it ass-backwards again. Criminals who violate YOUR rights are
the ones imposing their will on you. Removing them from the general
population is a good way to stop that.
>>
>>> Punishing gun crimes appropriately is the only reasonable, long term
>>> approach. But, of course, Mrs. Grundy would never have the stomach for
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> The very concept of "gun crime" is an false concept for the gullible and the
>> gun-controllers
>
> Not really.
Violent crime is violent crime, the means is irrelevant. Knives kill
more people in Canada than guns, but 99% of the media focus is on gun
crime. The distinction is purely political for political motives.
>
>> If assault is a crime, it doesn't matter if it's committed with a gun or a
>> ball-peen hammer. It's still an assault
>> To argue that the crime is somehow worse or not, because a gun was used
>> instead of something else, just plays into the hands of the gun-control
>> crowd
>> If you assault somebody, I don't really care what you use to do it.
>> The crime is STILL assault.
>
> I'm trained in the martial arts. You come at me with a hammer or a
> knife, you're the one who's in trouble. If you come at me with a gun,
> there are gambits I can try, but none with any high chance of success,
> especially if you're fully willing to pull the trigger in the first
> place.
>
> Any gun crime involves a mortal threat. Always. Hence it's a more
> serious crime.
So does any knife crime. As I mentioned above knives kill more people
in Canada than guns. The only reason to focus on a particular means is
purely political. Political careers are often founded on "getting tough
on crime", and focusing on the means is far simpler than dealing with
the cause. Your momma is going to cry just as loudly if you get
murdered with a knife as she would if you were murdered with a gun.
f. barnes
> It's akin to the old Soviet Union and their buffer countries. The Soviets
> had Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and other countries as
> buffers against the expected invasion by the West. In an even of war, if
> the West could be held to those countries, they would never get at Russia.
> In the same way, the NRA knows that if you give up legal assault weapons,
> or small, conceilable handguns, the next thing the anti-gun liberals will
> want are the normal handguns, the rifles and the shotguns. So, even if
> banning assault weapons and mandatory background checks and wait times
> probably makes sense on one level, I don't blame the NRA for fighting that
> ban, because they know it is only the thin edge of the anti-gun liberal
> wedge.
It's the same reason abortion supporters fight the tiniest legislation
controlling abortion, and the same reason those of us against illegal
immigration will fight any legislation easing restriction on illegals,
such as the dream act: everyone is afraid of incrementalism --- a
little bit now, a little bit more later, and then a little more.
Eventually it all adds up to a lot, the whole shebang So don't give
in on the first little bit no matter how reasonable it may seem.
That's how you will stop incrementalism in its tracks.
A good example of incrementalism is how smokers were pushed out on to
the sidewalk. It started with a small no smoking area, then a larger
no smoking area, then a small smoking area, and then outside onto the
sidewalk. Another good example is how taxes on tobacco increased
incrementally. Neither of these examples could have been accomplished
all at once, but a little reasonable bit at a time, that's how it's
done.
Uncle Steve
Implicit to your argument is the notion that the criminal justice
system is functional to its stated purpose. Not so. I has developed
into a machine that guaranteed police salaries and overtime, court
time, and hours for prison guards. Not to mention the massive
supporting bureaucracy, and spin-off industry. The state eats its own
citizens, and people like you brush that fact aside everytime you open
your mouth to spew your narrow-minded self-censored views.
The canadian policing establishment is worse than useless, primarily
as it gives the public a false sense of security. The fictional view
of police as good by default is reinforced in your mass media blindly
by journalists -- the same journalists who would rail against police
brutality and corruption overseas. Somehow the domestic police have
been made exempt from the civilizing influence of government, or at
least the ideal of civil government.
I'm so tired of reading cop apologist, after cop apologist, after cop
apologist pretending that the candian policing establishment is mostly
good, even if there are a "few bad apples." No. Those useless
fuckers are wildly corrupt, stupid, and mean. As we look from
municipal, to provincial, to the national police there is a rough
correlation to corruption with the local police being more likely to
be unsophisticated brutes, and at the national level more easily
comparable to the WWII German SS. Military police fit in there
somewhere too.
This country should get rid of the lot of them and make sure they are
restricted from any work that requires demonstrated integrity and
personal accountability. Again, they are WORSE THAN USELESS -- unless
you're a cop-lover. In which case you may have a chance to get in on
the graft with all the rest of the corrupt freeloading scum.
Regards,
Uncle Steve
--
Liberals show the true value of the public education system.
SaPeIsMa
> In article <4b6dnZ0hVtY12abQ...@bright.net>,
> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c02a5$4d3b2d14$18f556a5$14...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>> >
>> > Long prison sentences can lower crime statistics, but at what price?
>> > First of all, there's nothing logical about imprisoning anyone.
>>
>> Yes there is
>> It segregates the criminal from the law-abiding population and thus
>> reduces
>> the probability of creating more victims
>> That's as logical as one can get.
>
> No, that's as /pragmatic/ as one can get.
>
> There's no logical basis for removing anyone from society, unless you're
> afraid of that individual.
>
So basically you're claiming that because you're a moron, and not "afraid"
of that damage a criminal can cause to you or those around you, there's no
reason to stick them in jail ?
Got it.
> If you fear "criminals" because you believe they're smarter than you,
> then maybe they're the ones who should stay on the outside. If you fear
> they're more powerful than you, well, so is a lion. Lions aren't really
> a danger to humans--they just /seem/ to be.
>
Wow
Now there's a cogently intelligent argument
If you're stupid enough not to be "afraid" than you can ignore dangers like
criminals and lions and not worry about the harm they can do to you.
> You put "criminals" away in prison, not because you wish to right a
> wrong, but because you think a criminal is somehow not quite as human as
> you. Not as able to see the benefit of following the rules as you. Not
> as able to function in society as you.
>
Nope
I believe in putting criminals away in prison because
1) Society has made rules about what is and is not accepatable behavior
2) The criminal CHOSE to ignore those rules
3) The criminal has HARMED innocents by ignoring those rules
4) The criminal is put away
punishment for his actions,
a warning to other would-be criminals
to avoid the possibility that he would repeat his action in the
near future.
Your projecting fear as some kind of motive is a strawman.
> ...That there is no hope for someone who egregiously breaks the law.
>
> ...That criminals are "human debris."
>
Your projections, YOU take responsibility for them
>> > It only "fits the crime" because some bureaucrats have arbitrarily
>> > decided it that way--
>>
>> Nope
>> Were that true, then the concept would not have stood up the test of time
>
> It really hasn't "stood the test of time" in the sense you assume.
>
> Prisons were first built to house suspected criminals until they could
> be tried and punished. They retained that function until relatively
> recently.
>
> Then, somehow, the imprisonment, itself, became the punishment. Mostly
> because you either didn't have the heart to punish anyone, or because
> you realized that sweeping the human debris under the rug actually
> already solved the problem from your perspective.
>
> Why bother with anything else?
>
Well, dummy, before "imprisonement became the punishment, there were other
forms that wooly-thinkers like you thought were much too cruel
You know, death, wipping, the stocks, etc
Prison was then used instead of other more drastic forms of punishment by
the same category of idiots who today try to argue that we should do away
with prison
I personally don't have a problem with taking out a rapist and putting a
bullet in the back of his head.
As a matter of fact, I would give his victims the option of doing so
themselves.
But then, I'm just a barbarian.
But I'll tell you one thing
You'd have a lot less rapists around with a second chance at being a
repeat offender.
>> > and from year to year they keep changing their minds about how
>> > many years is "appropriate" for which crimes. Secondly, it's expensive
>> > to imprison 3 million people, and meeting their humanitarian needs will
>> > make prison seem to many inmates not nearly as bad as living "free" in
>> > the poverty and anarchy of the ghetto.
>> >
>>
>> Trouble with that claim is that there is NO CAUSATIVE surpport for the
>> claim
>> that poverty causes crime.
>
> That wasn't the claim, silly.
>
> The claim was, prisoners who come from the ghetto can actually feel more
> safe, more at home, more secure in their daily lives within a prison
> environment, rather than at "home" in the ghetto.
>
> Once you figure out the ropes in prison, you can lead your life without
> too much trouble. Three squares, haircut every month, clean sheets on
> the bed. Doctor there for when you get sick. You even get a job to keep
> you busy. You figure out who to avoid, what to say when confronted. You
> make friends, and they stay your friends for many years, and help watch
> your back. Sometimes you even make friends with the guards.
>
> You don't get any of that in the ghetto, and in the slums you never know
> where it's gonna come at you. The police. The rival gangs. The stray
> predator. Your own brother might even rob you. They're all out there to
> get you, one way or another. But you can't predict any of it. You're
> never safe. Never sure.
>
> In prison, you can predict. It's controlled.
>
Yes, even the prisons have their sheeple
>> On the other hand there are individuals who are unable to live within
>> even
>> the simplest constraints of society to avoid predation of others
>> The rest of society does have the right to segregate such individuals for
>> their own safety.
>
> They don't have the "right," of course. They have the /strength/ to
> enforce their will on the few.
Which is why I'm a great fan of RKBA, it reduces any such advantage the
bullies may imagine having.
>>
>> > Punishing gun crimes appropriately is the only reasonable, long term
>> > approach. But, of course, Mrs. Grundy would never have the stomach for
>> > it.
>> >
>>
>> The very concept of "gun crime" is an false concept for the gullible and
>> the
>> gun-controllers
>
> Not really.
>
Yes really
Too bad you're gullible and more..
>> If assault is a crime, it doesn't matter if it's committed with a gun or
>> a
>> ball-peen hammer. It's still an assault
>> To argue that the crime is somehow worse or not, because a gun was used
>> instead of something else, just plays into the hands of the gun-control
>> crowd
>> If you assault somebody, I don't really care what you use to do it.
>> The crime is STILL assault.
>
> I'm trained in the martial arts. You come at me with a hammer or a
> knife, you're the one who's in trouble.
Not everyone is trained in the martial arts
And just being trained does not garatee you'll survive the experience
Your attacker may be equally trained and possible more competent than you
imagine yourself to be
Not to mention that there are people who are physically unable to do the
"martial arts" thing.
That argument is just specious chest-beating
> If you come at me with a gun,
> there are gambits I can try, but none with any high chance of success,
> especially if you're fully willing to pull the trigger in the first
> place.
>
That would depend why I'm coming at you with a gun, now doesn't it.
I can put a bullet in your head at 10 yards
No chance for you to even try your "gambits".
And were I to pull my gun on you, it would not be to wave it at you and show
you how pretty it is.
It's to put multiple bullets in you until I stop considering you a
threat.
I always have to laugh at the idiots who putll the stupid "martial arts"
argument
It just shows you to be ignorant
> Any gun crime involves a mortal threat. Always. Hence it's a more
> serious crime.
>
BULLSHIT
Safe storage laws are "gun crimes" and they involve no threat to anyone
Stupid generalizations like this just show how ignorant and half-baked you
really are.
Neolibertarian
Chom Noamsky <blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/2011 5:41 PM, Neolibertarian wrote:
> > In article<4b6dnZ0hVtY12abQ...@bright.net>,
> > "SaPeIsMa"<SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Neolibertarian"<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:c02a5$4d3b2d14$18f556a5$14...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> >>>
> >>> Long prison sentences can lower crime statistics, but at what price?
> >>> First of all, there's nothing logical about imprisoning anyone.
> >>
> >> Yes there is
> >> It segregates the criminal from the law-abiding population and thus
> >> reduces
> >> the probability of creating more victims
> >> That's as logical as one can get.
> >
> > No, that's as /pragmatic/ as one can get.
> >
> > There's no logical basis for removing anyone from society, unless you're
> > afraid of that individual.
>
> Eh? Violent criminals typically don't have a problem with infringing
> upon the rights of others. Deliberately harm someone and you've
> violated one or more of that person's basic human rights. In a
> libertarian society individual rights are sacred, violate them and the
> consequences must be fitting of the violation.
I understand what you're saying, but all this begs the question.
First of all, you don't JUST imprison /violent/ criminals, do you?
Rapists, drug dealers, embezzlers, murderers, drunk-driving killers,
bank robbers, burglars, black marketeers, even mere fist-fighters (drunk
and disorderly) and tax cheats: you imprison them all in exactly the
same manner.
The only real difference is the length of time you "take away their
human rights." And that's completely arbitrary. It changes from one
legislative session to the next--dependent upon which politician is
attempting to "get tough on crime" and "clean up our streets."
The fact of the matter is, the punishment /does not/ fit the crime. The
only crime that could be fitted to imprisonment would be kidnapping. To
spend years and decades in prison would only make sense for those
strange cases of men kidnapping young girls and women, who then keep
them locked in their basements for years and years as sex-slaves.
> It's totally logical to
> deny a violator further opportunities to victimize, until they can
> demonstrate a genuine respect for the rights of others.
I disagree. I think to lock someone away is a cowardly act on the part
of society.
Even so, the opportunity to victimize will reassert itself as soon as
you release the violator in 2 months, or 2 years, or 2 decades.
Lock away a bank robber today. Good for society.
However, unnoticed by society, is the bank robber you locked away 8
years ago. He's /released/ today. New suit, $200 dollars in his hand. A
letter of recommendation from the warden, an address of a flop house,
and the phone number of a work-placement agency in the breast pocket of
the suit.
This man is /turned back loose/ on society; you see, almost all prison
sentences eventually come to an end. Net gain to society's safety = zero.
Do you seriously believe that anyone or anything has taught him "a
genuine respect for the rights of others" during the eight years he was
locked up with a large group of criminals you also weren't punishing?
>
> > If you fear "criminals" because you believe they're smarter than you,
> > then maybe they're the ones who should stay on the outside. If you fear
> > they're more powerful than you, well, so is a lion. Lions aren't really
> > a danger to humans--they just /seem/ to be.
>
> People fear having their basic rights and freedoms violated. Criminals
> are generally the ones doing that.
Fear is the root of all evil.
>
> > You put "criminals" away in prison, not because you wish to right a
> > wrong, but because you think a criminal is somehow not quite as human as
> > you.
>
> No, we put criminals away because they have demonstrated disregard for
> the humanity of others.
Look, there's lots of people walking around free in our society who've
demonstrated a disregard for the humanity of others. They're just
careful not to actually break statutes, or they're careful not to get
caught.
Our prisons are filled with our dumbest--not necessarily our most evil.
Prison, as a punishment, is in reality either no punishment at all, or
it's the most cruel torture you could ever inflict on another human
being. In many cases, it's both.
Imprisoning people for breaking society's rules is a demonstration of
disregard for the humanity of others.
> > Not as able to see the benefit of following the rules as you. Not
> > as able to function in society as you.
> >
> > ...That there is no hope for someone who egregiously breaks the law.
> >
> > ...That criminals are "human debris."
>
> If that were true then we'd do away with jail and start chopping off
> hands and heads.
Mrs. Grundy wouldn't allow that.
> We don't do that because the modern day focus is on
> reform, at least in Canada is it (for the most part).
You're not "reforming," even in Canada.
You're attempting to /reprogram/, not reform. You're attempting to turn
a wolf into a sheep. Whatever success is achieved isn't really a net
gain for society.
But it's moot anyway, because there'd not much reforming or reprograming
going on.
>
> >>> It only "fits the crime" because some bureaucrats have arbitrarily
> >>> decided it that way--
> >>
> >> Nope
> >> Were that true, then the concept would not have stood up the test of time
> >
> > It really hasn't "stood the test of time" in the sense you assume.
> >
> > Prisons were first built to house suspected criminals until they could
> > be tried and punished. They retained that function until relatively
> > recently.
>
> Right, back when the judgment was either freedom or death.
I'm not an advocate of any former system of so-called justice. I'm
merely pointing out how prisons came to be and why.
>
> > Then, somehow, the imprisonment, itself, became the punishment. Mostly
> > because you either didn't have the heart to punish anyone, or because
> > you realized that sweeping the human debris under the rug actually
> > already solved the problem from your perspective.
> >
> > Why bother with anything else?
>
> That might be true in the US. In more liberal societies the philosophy
> is focused on the corrections.
In the US, they're usually referred to as "correctional facilities,"
rather than "prisons."
> I have a friend who manages the largest
> private prison in North America. His take is that roughly 1/3 are
> completely beyond any kind of reform. And it's due to a sad fact:
> victims of maladies like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Drug Syndrome
> are hugely over-represented in the prison population. These people are
> born into the world disadvantaged in the worst way, sometimes with
> severely crippled cognitive abilities. They do not understand the
> concept of consequences like a normal human does. You might say the
> criminals are the mothers and fathers, but then they were probably the
> victims of circumstance themselves, and so on and so on. In the end the
> cause can only be described as a general social failure.
In some ways, the above is just like saying "sub-human."
In other ways, the above is just like saying "since it's society's
failure, it's no individual human's fault."
Which, let's be honest, may well be true.
But both are examples of self-destructive pessimism concerning your
fellow human beings, and by extension, yourself.
It's the same story in the US. Some state prisons are known as "boys
clubs." Higher security prisons are thought of more as "hard time."
However, every day in the Ghetto can be "hard time" too.
Besides, consider this rambling testimony about the prison system from
Ted Bundy (notorious serial killer from the 1970's and 1980's):
==begin quote==
"I was scared to death in the Salt Lake City jail...I thought I was
going to die every night the first few days I was in jail back in
October of 1975. I was /scared to death/! Daily. I thought they were
going to kill me.
"Animals sense it. Just like the old adage that a dog can tell when
somebody is afraid of it. They sensed it--and some guys jacked me up on
it. I mean, nothing /happened/. But they said 'Hey, Bundy, did you
really do that?' This or that. Nobody fucks with me anymore about that.
"I've come across the toughest, meanest dudes on Death Row. They'd slit
your throat in a second. I count them as my friends. They give me no
trouble. I don't expect I'll ever have any trouble with 'em unless I try
to fuck 'em somehow. It's not really men they're in awe of. It's the
reputation or something that goes with it.
"After I was sentenced in Salt Lake City, I was put on 'A' block at Utah
State Prison, were Truman Capote filmed /The Glass House/. I was scared
to death for a while. A couple of guys kept chanting, 'we don't like
rape-os.' Gave me the bad eye. Called me a baby raper and all that shit.
"Nobody would ever do that to me now. They might talk a lot. But they
won't say anything to my face. The reputation stops 'em. They're afraid
I'll do something to them. And I probably would, if it came down to it.
It may be the way I carry myself. They may have respect for me the way I
handle the authorities. They way I fucked with them. They way I made
them pay to get me. No one has said a cross word to me. Not even has
there been a mean word.
"They--all of them--will try to get over on you when you first come in.
They'll jam on you. They'll try to get you to sell them drugs and
promise to pay you back. They're always trying to hit on the new guy for
candy and cigarettes. I tell 'em to fuck off.
"Sydney Jones is a stand-up convict. About 260 pounds of mean, black
sonuvabitch who they build a special pair of handcuffs for because he
tears ordinary ones apart. Sydney asks me for my stuff and I say--in a
humorous way--'Fuck you, Sydney.' My Christmas package came and Sydney
said, 'Bundy, I want some cookies.' I told Sydney, 'Listen, I gotta take
care of myself.'
"He was after my law books. He's after everybody's law books. It's
nothing personal. I said, Sydney, if you want those law books, tear your
cell door off, come rip mine off, tear out the window--and we'll take
the law books with us!'
==end quote==
There are ways to adapt to prison life.
But just like all adaptations, the change back to life-on-the-outside
requires even a greater ability to adapt and/or re-adapt.
> >> On the other hand there are individuals who are unable to live within even
> >> the simplest constraints of society to avoid predation of others
> >> The rest of society does have the right to segregate such individuals for
> >> their own safety.
> >
> > They don't have the "right," of course. They have the /strength/ to
> > enforce their will on the few.
>
> You got it ass-backwards again. Criminals who violate YOUR rights are
> the ones imposing their will on you. Removing them from the general
> population is a good way to stop that.
>
It's a way to stop that.
Whether or not it's a good way is the subject under discussion.
> >>> Punishing gun crimes appropriately is the only reasonable, long term
> >>> approach. But, of course, Mrs. Grundy would never have the stomach for
> >>> it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The very concept of "gun crime" is an false concept for the gullible and
> >> the
> >> gun-controllers
> >
> > Not really.
>
> Violent crime is violent crime, the means is irrelevant. Knives kill
> more people in Canada than guns, but 99% of the media focus is on gun
> crime. The distinction is purely political for political motives.
Intent to threaten the victim's life and/or intent to kill is much more
evident in crimes involving firearms than other kinds of weapons,
including knives.
Perhaps an assault involving a sword might be equal in intent to one
involving a firearm. But then, no one uses swords anymore, do they?
At any rate, it's not /purely/ political, in that the precept is based
on objective fact.
> >> If assault is a crime, it doesn't matter if it's committed with a gun or a
> >> ball-peen hammer. It's still an assault
> >> To argue that the crime is somehow worse or not, because a gun was used
> >> instead of something else, just plays into the hands of the gun-control
> >> crowd
> >> If you assault somebody, I don't really care what you use to do it.
> >> The crime is STILL assault.
> >
> > I'm trained in the martial arts. You come at me with a hammer or a
> > knife, you're the one who's in trouble. If you come at me with a gun,
> > there are gambits I can try, but none with any high chance of success,
> > especially if you're fully willing to pull the trigger in the first
> > place.
> >
> > Any gun crime involves a mortal threat. Always. Hence it's a more
> > serious crime.
>
> So does any knife crime. As I mentioned above knives kill more people
> in Canada than guns. The only reason to focus on a particular means is
> purely political. Political careers are often founded on "getting tough
> on crime", and focusing on the means is far simpler than dealing with
> the cause. Your momma is going to cry just as loudly if you get
> murdered with a knife as she would if you were murdered with a gun.
I agree that the means is irrelevant in the sense you discuss above.
Down here we also have begun to wrestle with motive. We've decided to
distinguish between crimes and "hate crimes."
As if motive were really an important factor in crime.
It's the results of an act, of course, that make a crime a crime. Motive
is not only a silly basis for punishment, it's absolutely impossible to
prove in any objective sense. After all, the perpetrator, himself, may
not have a clear understanding of his own motives.
Neolibertarian
when working within a powerful bureaucracy.
Some conscientiously perform their duties, some don't. The job of
policeman famously attracts personalities who A) worship authority and
B) believe that laws only apply to "the little people."
As long as their jobs are clearly delineated, and limited to practical
functions, with limited powers, police are /vital/ to a free society.
Only an ordered society can be a truly free society.
The balancing act is the tricky part.
But we've long ago assigned impossible tasks to our police force.
Americans, especially, expect their police forces and criminal justice
system to actually STOP crime, something along the lines of a Geheime
Staatspolizei. All while they have more and more hands tied behind their
backs. Now we even want them to tie half their brains behind their backs
too, such as in forbidding "profiling," for instance.
Not that you /want/ your police force to profile, btw. You don't.
Which just goes to show what an impossible job it's become...and
bureaucrats in the criminal justice system act exactly the way you'd
expect anyone to act when performing an impossible, self-defeating job.
Uncle Steve
That's another load of bollocks. Lots of you lie to yourselves about
"human nature" or the "human condition" (falling out of use recently)
as an explanaton for the reason why people do evil. It's never
education, or parenting, or brainwashing. It's just "natural"
according to common wisdom, or according to the lies of brain-damaged
leftists.
> Some conscientiously perform their duties, some don't. The job of
> policeman famously attracts personalities who A) worship authority and
> B) believe that laws only apply to "the little people."
>
> As long as their jobs are clearly delineated, and limited to practical
> functions, with limited powers, police are /vital/ to a free society.
> Only an ordered society can be a truly free society.
I won't argue that policing isn't sometimes necessary, as it's obvious
civilization requires a trained force of professionals to take down
criminals and gangs when necessary.
> The balancing act is the tricky part.
Well today the police are a criminal gang, and they get away with
capital crimes on a regular basis since their ability to investigate
their own personnel is toitally nonexistent.
> But we've long ago assigned impossible tasks to our police force.
> Americans, especially, expect their police forces and criminal justice
> system to actually STOP crime, something along the lines of a Geheime
> Staatspolizei. All while they have more and more hands tied behind their
> backs. Now we even want them to tie half their brains behind their backs
> too, such as in forbidding "profiling," for instance.
> Not that you /want/ your police force to profile, btw. You don't.
> Which just goes to show what an impossible job it's become...and
> bureaucrats in the criminal justice system act exactly the way you'd
> expect anyone to act when performing an impossible, self-defeating job.
They are not heroes labouring within the strictures of a system with
broken rules. Their system was "designed" throgh a process of
incrementalism on an opportunistic basis. The so-called rules don't
apply to them, and they have institutionalized a culture of
entitlement and immunity. It got that way because politicians,
judges, lawyers, and the mass media let them get that way when they
weren't actively scheming to create a fascist police state.
Many of them use. They are ignorant, pig-headed, goose-stepping
dumbfucks whose greatest motive is to fuck up anything and everything
so their budgets and powers increase arbitrarily. Prison guards run
their facilities as if they are a private playground of the macabre.
Brutish impulses govern their day. The bureaucracies are fortified
encampments whose primary purpose is to insulate operations from
outside scrutiny.
Did I mention they get away with murder? Figurative and literal. The
will not allow their system to be repaired, and I wouldn't trust any
of those fuckers to get through a morning commute to work without
committing a half-dozen felonies. Oh, and religious extremism seems
to be rampant, as you would expect in a population of uneducated
dumbfucks.
There is a mass of literature in support of my position, and very
little in support of theirs. If the book burners don't manage to
destroy the historical record (such as it is) future generations will
know what kind of craven human-garbage we have running policing and
judicial affairs today. For all their bullshit ceremonies and parades
in uniform, or farcical community outreach where Officer Friendly has
a nice little chat with a school full of children, none of it counts
towards making up for what has already been documented wrt. policing
atrocities.
They may require a military solution to break their grip. I don't see
another way: at every turn they violently oppose the smallest reform
towards meaningful transparency and accountability. The worst of them
cannot even consider surrender, and are hence quite dangerous.
Don't believe me? Just wait. Oh, and don't forget to keep an eye on
the military intel. crowd. They're just as busy as J. Random Bagman,
but they work behind the scenes. All are evil. Stupid.
Savages.
Patriot Games
>>> and mandatory background checks
>> The problem with background checks is they represent a false sense of
>> security. Back in the day a background check was basically Do your
>> neighbors know, like and trust you? Yes? Go get a gun. No? Go take
>> a long hike, don't come back, if you do we'll bury you...
>Well, at least we know now why "Bob Milby"
Who?
>aka "Buster Norris"
Who?
>aka "Patriot Gaymes" can never legally own a gun.
Actually we NOW know why Canadians are only useful as a Public Toilet
(if their mouth isn't already full).
Patriot Games
nom...@cda.ca> wrote:
alt.politics IP Search Results File: C:\AP_Data\Q_70.66.54.203.txt
01/23/2011
This search result file generated by DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
Copyright� 2010 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
---------------------------------------------------------------
<feles ma...@cda.ca>|70.66.54.203
Lege et lacrima <Lege et lac...@home.com>|70.66.54.203
gershwin <gers...@shawpiano.ca>|70.66.54.203
gershwin <gers...@shawpiano.ca>|70.66.54.203
gershwin+ <gers...@shawpiano.ca>|70.66.54.203
mutato nomine <fmutato nom...@cda.ca>|70.66.54.203
mutato nom...@cda.ca <fmutato nom...@cda.ca>|70.66.54.203
stercus acc...@cda.ca <stercus acc...@cda.ca>|70.66.54.203
veritas vincit <gers...@shawpiano.ca>|70.66.54.203
Search start: Sun 1/23/2011 3:33:22 PM - End: Sun 1/23/2011 3:33:26 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright� 2010 DemocRAT Hall Of Shame.Com
Neolibertarian
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b3ea$4d3b868d$18f556a5$15...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> > In article <4b6dnZ0hVtY12abQ...@bright.net>,
> > "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:c02a5$4d3b2d14$18f556a5$14...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Long prison sentences can lower crime statistics, but at what price?
> >> > First of all, there's nothing logical about imprisoning anyone.
> >>
> >> Yes there is
> >> It segregates the criminal from the law-abiding population and thus
> >> reduces
> >> the probability of creating more victims
> >> That's as logical as one can get.
> >
> > No, that's as /pragmatic/ as one can get.
> >
> > There's no logical basis for removing anyone from society, unless you're
> > afraid of that individual.
> >
>
> So basically you're claiming that because you're a moron, and not "afraid"
> of that damage a criminal can cause to you or those around you, there's no
> reason to stick them in jail ?
>
> Got it.
That's not much of a response, even for here at Usenet.
>
> > If you fear "criminals" because you believe they're smarter than you,
> > then maybe they're the ones who should stay on the outside. If you fear
> > they're more powerful than you, well, so is a lion. Lions aren't really
> > a danger to humans--they just /seem/ to be.
> >
>
> Wow
> Now there's a cogently intelligent argument
Thanks!
> If you're stupid enough not to be "afraid" than you can ignore dangers like
> criminals and lions and not worry about the harm they can do to you.
>
Being afraid of either is dangerous. That way lies panic, and panic can
freeze you when you urgently need to move most.
A lion is not a danger to a man, as long as the man is aware of its
presence and wary and respectful of what the lion is capable of.
> > You put "criminals" away in prison, not because you wish to right a
> > wrong, but because you think a criminal is somehow not quite as human as
> > you. Not as able to see the benefit of following the rules as you. Not
> > as able to function in society as you.
> >
>
> Nope
> I believe in putting criminals away in prison because
> 1) Society has made rules about what is and is not accepatable behavior
Who is this society? I need to speak to him about some of his rules.
> 2) The criminal CHOSE to ignore those rules
Yes, he did that.
And rather than make him pay for his mistake(s), you'd seal him off from
your society into a coventry filled with other violators whose mistakes
you won't punish them for, either.
> 3) The criminal has HARMED innocents by ignoring those rules
So how's he gonna learn if you refuse to punish him in a reasonable,
forthright manner?
Are you not sure he's guilty? Are you not sure you can arrive at an
appropriate punishment? Are there no ways for the criminal to perform
reparations?
> 4) The criminal is put away
> punishment for his actions,
But incarceration is either no punishment at all, or it's nearly
unimaginable inhuman torture. Sometimes it's both.
> a warning to other would-be criminals
How much of a warning is it for someone who lives in that Ghetto you
refuse to drive through, even in broad daylight?
There are many perks to prison life, from a certain point of view.
Especially after you've once adapted yourself to it.
> to avoid the possibility that he would repeat his action in the
> near future.
Recidivism has always been the rule rather than the exception in this
present system.
> Your projecting fear as some kind of motive is a strawman.
Perhaps it's a straw man, but fear seems to neatly explain all the
observed phenomena.
> > ...That there is no hope for someone who egregiously breaks the law.
> >
> > ...That criminals are "human debris."
> >
>
> Your projections, YOU take responsibility for them
I know these are at least in part true, because I've heard these
arguments articulated exactly this way before.
> >> > It only "fits the crime" because some bureaucrats have arbitrarily
> >> > decided it that way--
> >>
> >> Nope
> >> Were that true, then the concept would not have stood up the test of time
> >
> > It really hasn't "stood the test of time" in the sense you assume.
> >
> > Prisons were first built to house suspected criminals until they could
> > be tried and punished. They retained that function until relatively
> > recently.
> >
> > Then, somehow, the imprisonment, itself, became the punishment. Mostly
> > because you either didn't have the heart to punish anyone, or because
> > you realized that sweeping the human debris under the rug actually
> > already solved the problem from your perspective.
> >
> > Why bother with anything else?
> >
>
> Well, dummy, before "imprisonement became the punishment, there were other
> forms that wooly-thinkers like you thought were much too cruel
> You know, death, wipping, the stocks, etc
Yes, I'm aware that throughout history, there have been very few
cultures which could "make the punishment fit the crime."
> Prison was then used instead of other more drastic forms of punishment by
> the same category of idiots who today try to argue that we should do away
> with prison
I don't think you'll find where I, at any rate, was advocating that we
do away with prison.
But I'm certainly questioning the system as it is.
>
> I personally don't have a problem with taking out a rapist and putting a
> bullet in the back of his head.
How would that logically fit the crime? Are you nuts?
That's as unjust as hanging a cattle rustler.
> As a matter of fact, I would give his victims the option of doing so
> themselves.
> But then, I'm just a barbarian.
No excuse, I'm afraid.
Wouldn't it be far more just to perform the same basic act upon his
person? Say, in a publicly humiliating setting. With a splintery wooden
stick (and with a doctor standing by, of course).
And yes, the victim should always be given the prerogative of inflicting
justice, herself.
>
> But I'll tell you one thing
> You'd have a lot less rapists around with a second chance at being a
> repeat offender.
>
So he must be subhuman just because he stole sex?
He's human debris?
So does increasing the size and power of the police force, of course.
Creating a secret police force is even more effective.
The Second Amendment's purpose isn't to prevent crime, it's there to
prevent a Geheime staatspolizei.
> >>
> >> > Punishing gun crimes appropriately is the only reasonable, long term
> >> > approach. But, of course, Mrs. Grundy would never have the stomach for
> >> > it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The very concept of "gun crime" is an false concept for the gullible and
> >> the
> >> gun-controllers
> >
> > Not really.
> >
>
> Yes really
> Too bad you're gullible and more..
Gullible in what way?
> >> If assault is a crime, it doesn't matter if it's committed with a gun or
> >> a
> >> ball-peen hammer. It's still an assault
> >> To argue that the crime is somehow worse or not, because a gun was used
> >> instead of something else, just plays into the hands of the gun-control
> >> crowd
> >> If you assault somebody, I don't really care what you use to do it.
> >> The crime is STILL assault.
> >
> > I'm trained in the martial arts. You come at me with a hammer or a
> > knife, you're the one who's in trouble.
>
> Not everyone is trained in the martial arts
> And just being trained does not garatee you'll survive the experience
Correct.
> Your attacker may be equally trained and possible more competent than you
> imagine yourself to be
No argument from me.
> Not to mention that there are people who are physically unable to do the
> "martial arts" thing.
While all true, none of this really touches on the point, of course.
> That argument is just specious chest-beating
You're not following the argument, at all, evidently.
>
> > If you come at me with a gun,
> > there are gambits I can try, but none with any high chance of success,
> > especially if you're fully willing to pull the trigger in the first
> > place.
> >
>
> That would depend why I'm coming at you with a gun, now doesn't it.
> I can put a bullet in your head at 10 yards
Not very easily, especially if I'm not standing still waiting for you to
do so.
10 yards sounds like a long distance, but you'd be surprised how fast
such a distance can be closed--all without offering an easy target to
you.
> No chance for you to even try your "gambits".
You'd be surprised, and so would an assailant.
> And were I to pull my gun on you, it would not be to wave it at you and show
> you how pretty it is.
That's always the assumption. Which makes the gambit worth the odds.
However, you've already contradicted yourself: you're proving that a
crime committed with a firearm MUST be considered an assault with intent
to kill.
> It's to put multiple bullets in you until I stop considering you a
> threat.
>
> I always have to laugh at the idiots who putll the stupid "martial arts"
> argument
> It just shows you to be ignorant
Being able to defend yourself and others takes many forms. "Martial
arts" is just one such way.
The only reason I bring it up in the first place is because it's not a
police force's job to prevent crime.
They pretty much arrive /after a crime is committed/. Unless they're a
Geheime staatspolizei. And nobody wants a Geheime staatspolizei.
> > Any gun crime involves a mortal threat. Always. Hence it's a more
> > serious crime.
> >
>
> BULLSHIT
> Safe storage laws are "gun crimes" and they involve no threat to anyone
> Stupid generalizations like this just show how ignorant and half-baked you
> really are.
That's all you got?
Neolibertarian
<742273e3-444f-4efe...@e9g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
<messi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A stone age 14 year old human boy could take down an elephant and a lion
relatively easily. All by himself.
We may well have hunted Mammoths and some of their predators to
extinction during the last ice age.
It's that "ability to learn and solve problems" thingy. And that
"tool-maker" thingy.
And besides all that, man is the meanest, nastiest, most vile and cruel
creature ever to walk the earth.
Arguments?
Lions are scary, of course. But they just don't stand a chance against
us. You even admitted as much above.
Buster Norris
<blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
>I'm really a girl, here me giggle...
>Tee-hee!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buster Norris
<patrio...@democrathallofshame.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:49:35 -0800, Chom Noamsky
><blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
>>On 1/22/2011 12:23 PM, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> and mandatory background checks
>>> The problem with background checks is they represent a false sense of
>>> security. Back in the day a background check was basically Do your
>>> neighbors know, like and trust you? Yes? Go get a gun. No? Go take
>>> a long hike, don't come back, if you do we'll bury you...
>>Well, at least we know now why "Bob Milby"
>
>Who?
>
>>aka "Buster Norris"
>
>Who?
>
>>aka "Patriot Gaymes" can never legally own a gun.
>
>Actually we NOW know why Canadians are only useful as a Public Toilet
>(if their mouth isn't already full).
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chom Noamsky
Okay, so forcible confinement is fitting punishment for the offense of
forcible confinement. Does that mean rape is fitting punishment for a
rapist and death is fitting punishment for a murderer? You seem to be
arguing for some "eye-for-an-eye" biblical stone age thing.
>> It's totally logical to
>> deny a violator further opportunities to victimize, until they can
>> demonstrate a genuine respect for the rights of others.
>
> I disagree. I think to lock someone away is a cowardly act on the part
> of society.
>
> Even so, the opportunity to victimize will reassert itself as soon as
> you release the violator in 2 months, or 2 years, or 2 decades.
>
> Lock away a bank robber today. Good for society.
>
> However, unnoticed by society, is the bank robber you locked away 8
> years ago. He's /released/ today. New suit, $200 dollars in his hand. A
> letter of recommendation from the warden, an address of a flop house,
> and the phone number of a work-placement agency in the breast pocket of
> the suit.
>
> This man is /turned back loose/ on society; you see, almost all prison
> sentences eventually come to an end. Net gain to society's safety = zero.
>
> Do you seriously believe that anyone or anything has taught him "a
> genuine respect for the rights of others" during the eight years he was
> locked up with a large group of criminals you also weren't punishing?
In Canada only 35% of offenders are convicted of a second offense. The
recidivism rate for women is 1-in-5. Don't get me wrong, if
community-based solutions can produce equal or lower recidivism rates
than incarceration I'm all for it.
>>> If you fear "criminals" because you believe they're smarter than you,
>>> then maybe they're the ones who should stay on the outside. If you fear
>>> they're more powerful than you, well, so is a lion. Lions aren't really
>>> a danger to humans--they just /seem/ to be.
>>
>> People fear having their basic rights and freedoms violated. Criminals
>> are generally the ones doing that.
>
> Fear is the root of all evil.
Fear assists in evading predation, it's instinctive. Without fear we
would stand there and get attacked when we should be running like hell.
And evil is just a silly philosophical construct, because it implies
there are moral absolutes.
>>> You put "criminals" away in prison, not because you wish to right a
>>> wrong, but because you think a criminal is somehow not quite as human as
>>> you.
>>
>> No, we put criminals away because they have demonstrated disregard for
>> the humanity of others.
>
> Look, there's lots of people walking around free in our society who've
> demonstrated a disregard for the humanity of others. They're just
> careful not to actually break statutes, or they're careful not to get
> caught.
>
> Our prisons are filled with our dumbest--not necessarily our most evil.
>
> Prison, as a punishment, is in reality either no punishment at all, or
> it's the most cruel torture you could ever inflict on another human
> being. In many cases, it's both.
>
> Imprisoning people for breaking society's rules is a demonstration of
> disregard for the humanity of others.
If one of your loved ones is raped the murdered (or murdered then raped)
by a serial killer, I suppose you have no problem with that person
retaining their freedom and continuing to rape and kill.
>>> Not as able to see the benefit of following the rules as you. Not
>>> as able to function in society as you.
>> >
>>> ...That there is no hope for someone who egregiously breaks the law.
>>>
>>> ...That criminals are "human debris."
>>
>> If that were true then we'd do away with jail and start chopping off
>> hands and heads.
>
> Mrs. Grundy wouldn't allow that.
>
>> We don't do that because the modern day focus is on
>> reform, at least in Canada is it (for the most part).
>
> You're not "reforming," even in Canada.
>
> You're attempting to /reprogram/, not reform. You're attempting to turn
> a wolf into a sheep. Whatever success is achieved isn't really a net
> gain for society.
>
> But it's moot anyway, because there'd not much reforming or reprograming
> going on.
If only 1-of-3 offenders in Canada is re-offending then something is
doing the job.
Pessimism? I call it pragmatism. You probably have some fanciful
ideological solution to dealing with criminals, and what I do know is
that ideological solutions to real problems never give ideological results.
The best way to adapt and/or re-adapt is to never become isolated. That
implies not doing the crime that got you there in the first place.
Now, what would *you* do with Ted Bundy, or any other serial killer? So
far you haven't offered any alternate solutions to incarceration.
>>>> On the other hand there are individuals who are unable to live within even
>>>> the simplest constraints of society to avoid predation of others
>>>> The rest of society does have the right to segregate such individuals for
>>>> their own safety.
>>>
>>> They don't have the "right," of course. They have the /strength/ to
>>> enforce their will on the few.
>>
>> You got it ass-backwards again. Criminals who violate YOUR rights are
>> the ones imposing their will on you. Removing them from the general
>> population is a good way to stop that.
>>
> It's a way to stop that.
>
> Whether or not it's a good way is the subject under discussion.
So far it works better than a spanking and a lecture. As above, if you
have a better solution the let's hear it.
>>>>> Punishing gun crimes appropriately is the only reasonable, long term
>>>>> approach. But, of course, Mrs. Grundy would never have the stomach for
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The very concept of "gun crime" is an false concept for the gullible and
>>>> the
>>>> gun-controllers
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>
>> Violent crime is violent crime, the means is irrelevant. Knives kill
>> more people in Canada than guns, but 99% of the media focus is on gun
>> crime. The distinction is purely political for political motives.
>
> Intent to threaten the victim's life and/or intent to kill is much more
> evident in crimes involving firearms than other kinds of weapons,
> including knives.
Now that's just silly. Criminal intent is established when a guilty
state of mind is established (mens rea). Considering guns are used
defensively far more than offensively, involving a gun in a crime does
not make intent evident any more than any other weapon.
> Perhaps an assault involving a sword might be equal in intent to one
> involving a firearm. But then, no one uses swords anymore, do they?
>
> At any rate, it's not /purely/ political, in that the precept is based
> on objective fact.
It's purely political when bad pharmaceuticals and bad food kill far
more people every year than guns, both causes of death more preventable
than gun homicides. Bad pharmaceuticals alone account for about 100,000
deaths every year (Journal of the American Medical Association) in the
United States. Prioritizing lesser public safety issues ahead of
greater ones can only be described as political theater.
>
>>>> If assault is a crime, it doesn't matter if it's committed with a gun or a
>>>> ball-peen hammer. It's still an assault
>>>> To argue that the crime is somehow worse or not, because a gun was used
>>>> instead of something else, just plays into the hands of the gun-control
>>>> crowd
>>>> If you assault somebody, I don't really care what you use to do it.
>>>> The crime is STILL assault.
>>>
>>> I'm trained in the martial arts. You come at me with a hammer or a
>>> knife, you're the one who's in trouble. If you come at me with a gun,
>>> there are gambits I can try, but none with any high chance of success,
>>> especially if you're fully willing to pull the trigger in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>>> Any gun crime involves a mortal threat. Always. Hence it's a more
>>> serious crime.
>>
>> So does any knife crime. As I mentioned above knives kill more people
>> in Canada than guns. The only reason to focus on a particular means is
>> purely political. Political careers are often founded on "getting tough
>> on crime", and focusing on the means is far simpler than dealing with
>> the cause. Your momma is going to cry just as loudly if you get
>> murdered with a knife as she would if you were murdered with a gun.
>
> I agree that the means is irrelevant in the sense you discuss above.
> Down here we also have begun to wrestle with motive. We've decided to
> distinguish between crimes and "hate crimes."
>
> As if motive were really an important factor in crime.
It's quite important when it comes to serious crimes. It can make the
difference in deciding a crime of passion or a premeditated plot to
murder someone. The main difference of course being the severity of the
penalty. Also police normally can't take a suspect into custody without
demonstrating motive.
> It's the results of an act, of course, that make a crime a crime. Motive
> is not only a silly basis for punishment, it's absolutely impossible to
> prove in any objective sense.
But motive isn't used a basis for punishment, it's more or less used as
a modifying factor. If the evidence is really high quality then proving
motive isn't necessary for a conviction.
> After all, the perpetrator, himself, may
> not have a clear understanding of his own motives.
Not understanding your own motives is not a good defense, unless you
happen to be insane.
Chom Noamsky
> It's the same reason abortion supporters fight the tiniest legislation
> controlling abortion, and the same reason those of us against illegal
> immigration will fight any legislation easing restriction on illegals,
> such as the dream act: everyone is afraid of incrementalism --- a
> little bit now, a little bit more later, and then a little more.
> Eventually it all adds up to a lot, the whole shebang So don't give
> in on the first little bit no matter how reasonable it may seem.
> That's how you will stop incrementalism in its tracks.
Yup. People are often demanding respect for their pet liberty while
attacking the pet liberty of another. One group wants guns but doesn't
want abortion. Another group wants abortion but doesn't want guns. Yet
another group wants gay marriage but doesn't want religion. By the time
everyone is finished tearing each other's houses down there won't be any
liberties to defend. Sometimes you have to support a right you don't
agree with, otherwise you can be sure THEY will be coming for yours next.
> A good example of incrementalism is how smokers were pushed out on to
> the sidewalk. It started with a small no smoking area, then a larger
> no smoking area, then a small smoking area, and then outside onto the
> sidewalk. Another good example is how taxes on tobacco increased
> incrementally. Neither of these examples could have been accomplished
> all at once, but a little reasonable bit at a time, that's how it's
> done.
You filthy smoker :)
Neolibertarian
Chom Noamsky <blah...@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
> >
> > The fact of the matter is, the punishment /does not/ fit the crime. The
> > only crime that could be fitted to imprisonment would be kidnapping. To
> > spend years and decades in prison would only make sense for those
> > strange cases of men kidnapping young girls and women, who then keep
> > them locked in their basements for years and years as sex-slaves.
>
> Okay, so forcible confinement is fitting punishment for the offense of
> forcible confinement. Does that mean rape is fitting punishment for a
> rapist and death is fitting punishment for a murderer? You seem to be
> arguing for some "eye-for-an-eye" biblical stone age thing.
You were implicitly and explicitly claiming incarceration fits the crime.
Obviously, there's no logical basis for the claim, unless it were
involving the situation mentioned above.
The Jewish "eye for an eye" forms the basis of their system of
reparation (which is far more complex than you seem to realize). It also
forms your own industrial age system of contract law.
Reparation is inherently logical. It doesn't even necessarily involve
"punishment," in a usual sense. The only possible point of contention is
actually proving the case--which is why there are courts to begin with.
If you incur a debt, you must pay it back. This is the very basis and
foundation of your society (just as it was in the stone age, btw).
>
> >> It's totally logical to
> >> deny a violator further opportunities to victimize, until they can
> >> demonstrate a genuine respect for the rights of others.
> >
> > I disagree. I think to lock someone away is a cowardly act on the part
> > of society.
> >
> > Even so, the opportunity to victimize will reassert itself as soon as
> > you release the violator in 2 months, or 2 years, or 2 decades.
> >
> > Lock away a bank robber today. Good for society.
> >
> > However, unnoticed by society, is the bank robber you locked away 8
> > years ago. He's /released/ today. New suit, $200 dollars in his hand. A
> > letter of recommendation from the warden, an address of a flop house,
> > and the phone number of a work-placement agency in the breast pocket of
> > the suit.
> >
> > This man is /turned back loose/ on society; you see, almost all prison
> > sentences eventually come to an end. Net gain to society's safety = zero.
> >
> > Do you seriously believe that anyone or anything has taught him "a
> > genuine respect for the rights of others" during the eight years he was
> > locked up with a large group of criminals you also weren't punishing?
>
> In Canada only 35% of offenders are convicted of a second offense. The
> recidivism rate for women is 1-in-5. Don't get me wrong, if
> community-based solutions can produce equal or lower recidivism rates
> than incarceration I'm all for it.
A) I can't define "community-based solutions," can you?
B) Actually, without double checking, I believe that down here we've
been able to reduce recidivism too. There was a time it was in the 60
percentile and higher, but I think there's been some recent progress in
this area.
Obviously, a large and generous welfare state can help to reduce
recidivism. Longer prison sentences can also reduce recidivism (by
eliminating opportunities). As mentioned elsewhere in the discussion,
overly severe punishments can also reduce recidivism. One imagines there
were no recidivists, nor even a very high crime rate in the first place,
during the period of Roman crucifixions.
The vast majority of criminals are rational, after all.
C) I'm not so interested in curing the symptoms as much as addressing
the causes--I don't really trust "cures" anyway.
I'm not so interested in punishments as I am in justice.
>
> >>> If you fear "criminals" because you believe they're smarter than you,
> >>> then maybe they're the ones who should stay on the outside. If you fear
> >>> they're more powerful than you, well, so is a lion. Lions aren't really
> >>> a danger to humans--they just /seem/ to be.
> >>
> >> People fear having their basic rights and freedoms violated. Criminals
> >> are generally the ones doing that.
> >
> > Fear is the root of all evil.
>
> Fear assists in evading predation, it's instinctive. Without fear we
> would stand there and get attacked when we should be running like hell.
Of course it's necessary. But it can easily stifle or supplant your only
real and effective weapon in this world: logic.
Man is the creature who is not hostage to his instincts.
> And evil is just a silly philosophical construct, because it implies
> there are moral absolutes.
>
> >>> You put "criminals" away in prison, not because you wish to right a
> >>> wrong, but because you think a criminal is somehow not quite as human as
> >>> you.
> >>
> >> No, we put criminals away because they have demonstrated disregard for
> >> the humanity of others.
> >
> > Look, there's lots of people walking around free in our society who've
> > demonstrated a disregard for the humanity of others. They're just
> > careful not to actually break statutes, or they're careful not to get
> > caught.
> >
> > Our prisons are filled with our dumbest--not necessarily our most evil.
> >
> > Prison, as a punishment, is in reality either no punishment at all, or
> > it's the most cruel torture you could ever inflict on another human
> > being. In many cases, it's both.
> >
> > Imprisoning people for breaking society's rules is a demonstration of
> > disregard for the humanity of others.
>
> If one of your loved ones is raped the murdered (or murdered then raped)
> by a serial killer, I suppose you have no problem with that person
> retaining their freedom and continuing to rape and kill.
I have a problem with imprisoning them, as if that were to satisfy the
debt I'm owed.
>
> >>> Not as able to see the benefit of following the rules as you. Not
> >>> as able to function in society as you.
> >> >
> >>> ...That there is no hope for someone who egregiously breaks the law.
> >>>
> >>> ...That criminals are "human debris."
> >>
> >> If that were true then we'd do away with jail and start chopping off
> >> hands and heads.
> >
> > Mrs. Grundy wouldn't allow that.
> >
> >> We don't do that because the modern day focus is on
> >> reform, at least in Canada is it (for the most part).
> >
> > You're not "reforming," even in Canada.
> >
> > You're attempting to /reprogram/, not reform. You're attempting to turn
> > a wolf into a sheep. Whatever success is achieved isn't really a net
> > gain for society.
> >
> > But it's moot anyway, because there'd not much reforming or reprograming
> > going on.
>
> If only 1-of-3 offenders in Canada is re-offending then something is
> doing the job.
>
Pragmatism isn't the virtue you imagine it to be.
You're the only one discussing idealism. I'm merely discussing justice.
Justice is a form of idealism, certainly. But it's also very practical.
Extremely so.
Crucifixion works the same way, only better.
>
> Now, what would *you* do with Ted Bundy, or any other serial killer? So
> far you haven't offered any alternate solutions to incarceration.
First, it's of the utmost importance to prove that Bundy did what he
did. The "shadow of a doubt" thingy is tricky, to say the least.
Once these very high standards of proof have been satisfied, then the
debt is necessarily also clearly delineated.
Bundy must pay that debt. To the metaphorical penny, if at all possible.
Anything else is mere pragmatism. Anything else is not justice.
Criminal intent, intent to cause harm, and intent to kill are all
separate concepts in law, as well they should be.
>
> > Perhaps an assault involving a sword might be equal in intent to one
> > involving a firearm. But then, no one uses swords anymore, do they?
> >
> > At any rate, it's not /purely/ political, in that the precept is based
> > on objective fact.
>
> It's purely political when bad pharmaceuticals and bad food kill far
> more people every year than guns, both causes of death more preventable
> than gun homicides.
You can't prevent crime. That would be an idealist's goal, and I'm
certainly not speaking to idealism here.
People are people. We all have larceny in our hearts, but only a
relatively small portion of us will actually commit a crime.
For those who commit crimes to be morally equivalent to me, then they
must pay back their debts just like everyone else.
> Bad pharmaceuticals alone account for about 100,000
> deaths every year (Journal of the American Medical Association) in the
> United States.
"Bad" pharmaceuticals include misuse and over prescription. Also, there
are few drugs that act on all individuals the same way. Warning labels
don't tell you anything about the odds, but they do tell you there's
risks involved in taking them.
It doesn't seem to be that the drugs are "bad" in the sense of quality
control. They're merely "bad" because some people shouldn't take certain
ones, and it's very difficult to predict on an individual basis. Many of
the other cases are intentional misuse, doctor shopping and other forms
of over prescribing.
> Prioritizing lesser public safety issues ahead of
> greater ones can only be described as political theater.
It's not just a numbers game.
But we're taking about the symbolic quality of motive. Impossible to
prove.
>
> > It's the results of an act, of course, that make a crime a crime. Motive
> > is not only a silly basis for punishment, it's absolutely impossible to
> > prove in any objective sense.
>
> But motive isn't used a basis for punishment, it's more or less used as
> a modifying factor. If the evidence is really high quality then proving
> motive isn't necessary for a conviction.
Correct, but beside the point.
>
> > After all, the perpetrator, himself, may
> > not have a clear understanding of his own motives.
>
> Not understanding your own motives is not a good defense,
Not a defense normally, but it might be in a hate crimes trial.
> unless you
> happen to be insane.
--
SaPeIsMa
Indeed you process them through the criminal and or mental legalities to
make sure they qualify for such treatment.
> Rapists, drug dealers, embezzlers, murderers, drunk-driving killers,
> bank robbers, burglars, black marketeers, even mere fist-fighters (drunk
> and disorderly) and tax cheats: you imprison them all in exactly the
> same manner.
>
Yup
They're all criminals who have been caught breaking the rules
They are being put away from society for 2 reasons
1) To punish them by curbing their freedom
2) To keep them away from society so that they can NOT commit their acts
against the law-abiding
See how simple that was.
> The only real difference is the length of time you "take away their
> human rights." And that's completely arbitrary. It changes from one
> legislative session to the next--dependent upon which politician is
> attempting to "get tough on crime" and "clean up our streets."
>
It's ONLY arbitrary for idiots who want to claim that it is
The duration of incarceration is directly in proportion to how serious their
crimes are considered to be
> The fact of the matter is, the punishment /does not/ fit the crime. The
> only crime that could be fitted to imprisonment would be kidnapping. To
> spend years and decades in prison would only make sense for those
> strange cases of men kidnapping young girls and women, who then keep
> them locked in their basements for years and years as sex-slaves.
>
That's your opinion
It seems to differ from the majority of the population
>> It's totally logical to
>> deny a violator further opportunities to victimize, until they can
>> demonstrate a genuine respect for the rights of others.
>
> I disagree. I think to lock someone away is a cowardly act on the part
> of society.
>
That's nice
Others disagree with you
> Even so, the opportunity to victimize will reassert itself as soon as
> you release the violator in 2 months, or 2 years, or 2 decades.
>
In some cases yes, in some cases no
NO one claimed the system is perfect
You're the only one who seems to want to throw out the current system
without a replacement
> Lock away a bank robber today. Good for society.
>
> However, unnoticed by society, is the bank robber you locked away 8
> years ago. He's /released/ today. New suit, $200 dollars in his hand. A
> letter of recommendation from the warden, an address of a flop house,
> and the phone number of a work-placement agency in the breast pocket of
> the suit.
>
Nice fantasy
Nowhere near reality
Come back when you are arguing other than your personal interpretation of
events
> This man is /turned back loose/ on society; you see, almost all prison
> sentences eventually come to an end. Net gain to society's safety = zero.
>
Shows that you can't seem to add.
1) While he's locked up, he's not robbing banks
2) When he's released he's a lot older and less apt to take up bank
robbery again
> Do you seriously believe that anyone or anything has taught him "a
> genuine respect for the rights of others" during the eight years he was
> locked up with a large group of criminals you also weren't punishing?
Probably not
But it kept him from robbing banks or committing other crimes when he was
locked up
That is a NET GAIN to society that you seem to ignore in your (twisted)
argument.
I'll stop there, the rest is just repetition of the same
SaPeIsMa
I/m so sorry that it was too complicated for you.
>>
>> > If you fear "criminals" because you believe they're smarter than you,
>> > then maybe they're the ones who should stay on the outside. If you fear
>> > they're more powerful than you, well, so is a lion. Lions aren't really
>> > a danger to humans--they just /seem/ to be.
>> >
>>
>> Wow
>> Now there's a cogently intelligent argument
>
> Thanks!
>
You really should read the WHOLE response
That way you won't come across as stupidly superficial
>> If you're stupid enough not to be "afraid" than you can ignore dangers
>> like
>> criminals and lions and not worry about the harm they can do to you.
>>
> Being afraid of either is dangerous. That way lies panic, and panic can
> freeze you when you urgently need to move most.
> '
Stupid argument
Fearing something that's dangerous does NOT automatically lead to panic as
you so stupidly infer
> A lion is not a danger to a man, as long as the man is aware of its
> presence and wary and respectful of what the lion is capable of.
>
Total nonsense
Being aware of the presence of a dangerous creature does not make it less
dangerous
>> > You put "criminals" away in prison, not because you wish to right a
>> > wrong, but because you think a criminal is somehow not quite as human
>> > as
>> > you. Not as able to see the benefit of following the rules as you. Not
>> > as able to function in society as you.
>> >
>>
>> Nope
>> I believe in putting criminals away in prison because
>> 1) Society has made rules about what is and is not accepatable
>> behavior
>
> Who is this society? I need to speak to him about some of his rules.
>
I'll stop here, and leave you basking in arrant stupidity
SaPeIsMa
> In article
> <742273e3-444f-4efe...@e9g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> <messi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > If you fear "criminals" because you believe they're smarter than you,
>> > then maybe they're the ones who should stay on the outside. If you fear
>> > they're more powerful than you, well, so is a lion. Lions aren't really
>> > a danger to humans--they just /seem/ to be.
>> They are actually really dangerous(550 lbs)....Which is one of the
>> reasons why they've been hunted to extinction.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4160676.stm
>>
>> If you've ever seen them take down an elephant...You know they're not
>> to be fucked with.
>
> A stone age 14 year old human boy could take down an elephant and a lion
> relatively easily. All by himself.
>
TOTAL BULLSHIT unsupported by ANY evidence.
The Masai, who have made a traditional rite of manhood, used it to weed out
the weaker 14-year-olds.
That clearly tells us that it was not a 100 success rate.
The only people who can take down "all by themselves" an elephant are the
ones equipped with a high power rifle. And even they sometimes don't make it
home.
> We may well have hunted Mammoths and some of their predators to
> extinction during the last ice age.
>
Geological and fossil data, says otherwise.
> It's that "ability to learn and solve problems" thingy. And that
> "tool-maker" thingy.
>
> And besides all that, man is the meanest, nastiest, most vile and cruel
> creature ever to walk the earth.
>
> Arguments?
>
> Lions are scary, of course. But they just don't stand a chance against
> us. You even admitted as much above.
>
Yes, man is the APEX predator on the planet
But it's still considered fair game by other predators right below (or next)
to it on the food chain.
So did you have point to make ?
ScotchBright
>It's akin to the old Soviet Union and their buffer countries. The Soviets
>had Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and other countries as
>buffers against the expected invasion by the West. In an even of war, if
>the West could be held to those countries, they would never get at Russia.
>In the same way, the NRA knows that if you give up legal assault weapons,
>or small, conceilable handguns, the next thing the anti-gun liberals will
>want are the normal handguns, the rifles and the shotguns. So, even if
>banning assault weapons and mandatory background checks and wait times
>probably makes sense on one level, I don't blame the NRA for fighting that
>ban, because they know it is only the thin edge of the anti-gun liberal
>wedge.
>I would get Congress and the Senate to vote on an amendment to the
>constitution saying that if assualt weapons are banned from private
>ownership and that background checks and wait-times were mandatory, that
>would be the end of it, they would never go after any other kind of gun or
>try to enforce any other kind of exclusionary provision. At the same time,
>the use of a gun in a criminal act should net a person a sentence without
>parole for at least 15 years.
That's sensible, and there are reasons why it can't happen.
The liberals don't care that firearms are used in violence.
They're a symbol of individual rights, and ironically, it's "liberals"
who can't stand it.