U.S. Politics - Page 735 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7341  
Old 02-20-13, 21:11
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
No. 3 years. Sorry, thought I'd posted the link - it's from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

And I was wrong: it's not 1.5%, it's even lower, 1.2%.

If you really want to reduce crime, know what would lower recidivism rates even further? A more humane prison system and a stronger social safety net. Like Norway, for eg, which is around 20% total, compared to the US's ~50%.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz0n9t8l6FT

But that would be coddling the criminals, wouldn't it.
Wow. The homicide recidivism rate in Finland is 3X that of the USA.

So, we are to believe that the recidivism rate amongst violent felons (3 year) is 67% +, but somehow homicide is 1.2%.

Odd, wouldn't you say... unless of course criminal homicide does not just mean murder. Manslaughter is homicide, certainly not the same as murder 1 or 2.

It might be interesting to know those numbers. From everything I can find it appears that murder recidivism is much lower than violent felony re-incarceration.

Still, as it relates to guns, does it matter? If more than 3/4 of violent felons will be back in prison within 3 years, does that lessen anyone's need to be free to defend themselves or their loved ones?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009.
Reply With Quote
  #7342  
Old 02-20-13, 21:25
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
um, yes. Isn't that why you posted that scary, scary bit about Jerry Brown letting a horde of murderers loose on the streets? You even said that because of that, you were now thinking about getting a gun yourself.

We ****-can constitutional guarantee's quite often, when they no longer fit the reality of current-day life. Slavery, prohibition, denying voting rights to women and minorities, they were once "constitutional", and the whole point of the SC is to interpret what "constitutional rights" people have today, which more often than not are completely opposite to what was considered "constitutional" previously (segregation, for eg). The 2nd Amendment served it's purpose back when it was written, when the extent of firepower were muskets and cannon and the threat of government overextension and foreign invasion could realistically be fought off by militias, but the 2nd is completely obsolete in today's world. Time to move guns into the everyday regulatory realm and out of the constitutional realm.

Odd how often conservatives call for constitutional amendments, though.
Quote:
We ****-can constitutional guarantee's quite often
when was the last time we amended the bill of rights?

Quote:
the whole point of the SC is to interpret what "constitutional rights" people have today
Interpretation of is quite different than repeal, no?

Quote:
but the 2nd is completely obsolete in today's world. Time to move guns into the everyday regulatory realm and out of the constitutional realm
How many other of the first 10 are you wanting to remove constitutionally?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009.
Reply With Quote
  #7343  
Old 02-20-13, 21:47
phanatic phanatic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
The 2nd Amendment served it's purpose back when it was written, when the extent of firepower were muskets and cannon and the threat of government overextension and foreign invasion could realistically be fought off by militias, but the 2nd is completely obsolete in today's world.
Armies do not have to be overwhelmed in order for a resistance movement to achieve its objectives, just harassed until the cost is too high. Isn't this how America won Independence in the first place? Besides, why should we trust the government if we can't trust the citizens that elect and appoint those men and women? If it is merely that government officials are trained (so are many others), then how is it possible that 150 years of mandatory education has failed to bring up a responsible citizenry, such as existed in the first few years of the Republic when all free men were required to possess firearms?
Reply With Quote
  #7344  
Old 02-20-13, 22:26
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post



How many other of the first 10 are you wanting to remove constitutionally?
"Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Nope, nothing out dated about any of those.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
Reply With Quote
  #7345  
Old 02-20-13, 22:50
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
How many other of the first 10 are you wanting to remove constitutionally?
Just the outdated 2nd (and the pointless 3rd could probably go as well). How many do conservatives want to remove? Lessee.

Scrap part of the 14th http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1...mmigration-law

"Restore" the 13th http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...amendment.html

Repeal the 16th http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...hgWJ_blog.html

Repeal the 17th http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/op...=opinion&_r=1&

Not to mention the numerous calls for constitutional amendments to outlaw abortion - how many of those have there been over the years? - and for balanced budgets, repealing the federal income tax, banning Obamacare, gay marriage, flag burning, the two-thirds state repeals, etc. Then you've even got Wackjob Sharron Angle suggesting a repeal of the 21st so that the 18th - ie Prohibition - would come back into force. And lastly, not to mention how they've managed to completely recast the 2nd into something it isn't and was never meant to be.

Jeez, you guys really don't have much respect for the constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #7346  
Old 02-20-13, 23:38
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
The 2nd Amendment served it's purpose back when it was written, when the extent of firepower were muskets and cannon and the threat of government overextension and foreign invasion could realistically be fought off by militias, but the 2nd is completely obsolete in today's world. Time to move guns into the everyday regulatory realm and out of the constitutional realm.
Good to know to know that you have decided which rights the rest of us citizens are allowed to keep.

The Afghans seem to have done a pretty good job of convincing the U.S. to leave, and those guys can barely shoot straight. The Iraqis blew up the U.S. budget and were only subdued when the U.S. started to pay off the various factions; ultimately they achieved their political goals. The good ol' U.S. of A did not fare that well in the Vietnam either.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #7347  
Old 02-20-13, 23:40
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Then you've even got Wackjob Sharron Angle suggesting a repeal of the 21st so that the 18th - ie Prohibition - would come back into force.
Sounds like a whackjob you would feel right comfortable with. Alcohol is responsible for far more deaths than guns.

Think of the children. Ban Demon Rum!
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
  #7348  
Old 02-21-13, 01:51
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,840
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
Good to know to know that you have decided which rights the rest of us citizens are allowed to keep.

The Afghans seem to have done a pretty good job of convincing the U.S. to leave, and those guys can barely shoot straight. The Iraqis blew up the U.S. budget and were only subdued when the U.S. started to pay off the various factions; ultimately they achieved their political goals. The good ol' U.S. of A did not fare that well in the Vietnam either.
I see, so now Iraqis, Afghans, and Vietnamese are all American citizens who are/should be protected by the second Amendment. Bit of a reach to say that is a properly armed militia defying its own elected government, don't you think?
Or do you think?
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Proud member of the Clinic 1200
Reply With Quote
  #7349  
Old 02-21-13, 02:45
mikeNphilly mikeNphilly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 242
Default

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

The first part of the amendment allowed the US to create an army, as there was no standing army to speak of after the end of the Revolutionary war. The second part of the amendment says that we have the right to keep arms. The two parts have nothing to do with each other.

That comma is one of the most important commas ever used.
Reply With Quote
  #7350  
Old 02-21-13, 04:02
MarkvW's Avatar
MarkvW MarkvW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeNphilly View Post
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first part of the amendment allowed the US to create an army, as there was no standing army to speak of after the end of the Revolutionary war. The second part of the amendment says that we have the right to keep arms. The two parts have nothing to do with each other.

That comma is one of the most important commas ever used.
If that's true, then why can't I have my own M-60 and sarin stockpile?
__________________
Dr. Maserati, my friend, don't you start away uneasy.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.