Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Justice and the Race Card

Justice is supposed to be blind, but throughout our history it has not always been so.
Gregory Wallace and another man burst into the Kentucky home of Jordan and Tommy Gray and robbed them and their three-year-old daughter at gunpoint. But at Wallace's sentencing hearing Judge Olu Stevens singled out the Grays, not Wallace, for criticism. Wallace and his partner are black, and the Grays noted in their impact statement their daughter still reacts in fear to black men. Stevens said those remarks offended him and accused the parents of fostering racist behavior in their daughter. He sentenced Wallace to five years probation.
Reason

The judge stated that his remarks regarding race played no role in his sentencing decision, but were the roles reversed, would that argument have traction in the public eye?

100 comments:

  1. His post has it all... Black criminals, white victims, "racism" against white people... dmarks is gonna LOVE expressing his outrage in regard to this one. There is the issue of someone having a gun who should not, but OBVIOUSLY that has nothing to do with a lack of reasonable gun regulation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you could for a moment, ignore your fetish with dmarks...because an unnatural fetish it is.....how does "reasonable" [your framing] firearm regulation remove firearms from the hands of criminal....when it didn't work with alcohol and drugs?

      Delete
    2. There is no other commenter present at this time, so there is no reason to respond to what you think another commenter would say.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. wd jumping the gun (pun intended) again? Wow, who could have ever predicted that?

      Delete
    5. Odd isn't, not that I mind. He has little concept of the art of debate [providing objective arguments with foundation and refutation]. So it is strange that he would continue on this line.

      Delete
    6. The "art of debate" involves saying something, wishing you had not said it, and then pretending you didn't say it? That's what dmarks has done with his refusal to respond to me asking what he was referring to in regards to "it's been ages since any reasonable gun regulations were proposed in these discussions".

      Obviously CI notices this ONLY when he perceives that someone who disagrees with him isn't "providing objective arguments with foundation and refutation".

      Delete
    7. This was yet another classic example of you attempting to start an argument and little more, and a classic example of why nobody likes you (the constant confrontations and accusations, etc.). Sorry, wd, but it's the truth.

      Delete
    8. And he views ignorance as a virtue, Will.

      Delete
    9. Will confirms that he does not like being confronted with the truth. But this is something I already knew.

      Delete
    10. The truth from his parent's crawl space and exhaustive internet searches in lieu of actual books.

      Delete
    11. Will: ... where the wall-height is too short to put up posters of Mao and Keith Olbermann without folding the top and bottom edges around....

      Delete
    12. Partially explains the dude's anger perhaps.

      Delete
  2. I have no outrage over "black criminals, white victims". The skin color of victims and criminals has never mattered one bit to me.

    I also disdain all racism. Regardless of the skin color on those involved. To put a blatant instance of discrimination against any person due to their skin color in quotes like that, to mock it and deny the reality, isn't wise at all.

    Anyway, it's been ages since any reasonable gun regulations were proposed in these discussions.

    Now, let's get back on track...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. dmarks: ...it's been ages since any reasonable gun regulations were proposed in these discussions.

    What the hell are you talking about? What you and CI have been arguing is that there are no "reasonable gun regulations". Except to SAY* a felon should not be allowed to own a gun (because removing the right from such people would be done after they have been convicted and due process served). Other than that I can't think of any reasonable regulation gun nuts like you two would get behind. CI has argued that there is NO SUCH THING as a reasonable gun regulation!

    *Say you support keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, but that is as far as it goes. dmarks himself advocated buying a gun via a gun show or private sale to circumvate a background check. The route a criminal who wanted a gun might go. Proof that the gun nuts words about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (if they speak them) are insincere.

    In any case, you won't be able to stop every criminal who wants a gun from obtaining one by requiring BG checks no matter where or from whom the gun is obtained. Therefore why try? dmarks made this fallacious argument that Social Security should be abolished because poverty still results in deaths among the elderly (no matter that it reduced these deaths).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been saying that your label of "reasonable" is neither legally nor logically measurable, thus it's merely your opinion.

      You would hold the 2nd Amendment to a standard not even approached by your support of the remaining enumerated rights. Instead of supporting the use of the Constitutional mechanism change said Amendment, you would rather content to infringe upon it by means of framed narratives and political whim.

      Delete
    2. Getting a gun at a gun show or a private dealer is the route a law abiding citizen might go in order to avoid the quite unreasonable roadblocks, harassment, and hassle (placed there by out of line legislators) and exercise his or her basic rights.

      Because of the nutty views of certain people to harass law abiding gun owners.

      Delete
  4. I dispute each of the points Mr. Sanders is trying to make with his references to elsewhere. That is all I will say on this matter. Please respect CI's repeated request NOT to do this.

    I am fine referring only to what we discuss here, as the blog host has requested.

    (I have removed the comments that appear to "take the bait", and apologize to CI for leaving them).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The deleted comment with the timestamp April 15, 2015 at 9:32 PM was in reply to a comment from my that made no references to "elsewhere" nor was there any "baiting" within this comment. I asked a valid question... But dmarks obviously can't answer it.

      As for dmarks distaining all racism, I dispute this elsewhere. Heck, dmarks own comments (elsewhere) dispute this.

      Delete
    2. None of my comments here or elsewhere show any racism. In fact, in discussion of such incidents, the race of those involved never matters to me. While it clearly matters to you, Mr.Sanders.

      Delete
  5. Refer to my comment at
    "dmarksApril 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM"

    I have nothing to add.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you deleted the comment where you said "it's been ages since any reasonable gun regulations were proposed in these discussions" because you realized you screwed up?

      Screwed up in that you went off the gun nut narrative with your reference to "reasonable gun regulations". That is embarrassing.

      Delete
    2. I have always consistently opposed nutty views about guns (except many years ago when I favored the gun control agenda... something I regret, and a stance I had only because I was unaware of the facts).

      I didn't screw up. The fact is that the changed proposed by the gun control "nuts" are never reasonable.

      I deleted my comment only to give this discussion a fresh start.

      Delete
  6. dmarks: I deleted my comment only to give this discussion a fresh start.

    Sure. Although that is as believable as if you claimed your comment was deleted due to a "bug in Blogger" and that my quote of you was "faked".

    dmarks: The fact is that the changed proposed by the gun control "nuts" are never reasonable.

    So, then you're retracting the comment in which you said "it's been ages since any reasonable gun regulations were proposed in these discussions".

    Deleting something does not mean you never originally typed it and hit submit. I wanted to know what "reasonable gun regulations" you were referring to. But now you refuse to elaborate while spouting nonsensical excuses. I will assume I was correct when I guessed you screwed up.

    dmarks: Getting a gun at a gun show or a private dealer is the route a law abiding citizen might go in order to avoid the quite unreasonable roadblocks...

    The roadblocks are there to stop criminals from purchasing guns. Since you favor removing these roadblocks it is logical to assume you support criminals having easy access to guns. This is obviously a nutty position to hold, yet dmarks clearly *is* supporting it. dmarks = pro gun crime.

    CI: I've been saying that your label of "reasonable" is neither legally nor logically measurable, thus it's merely your opinion.

    It is also the opinion of MANY other people. People opposed to gun crime, unlike dmarks. And criminals (although dmarks might be intending to commit a crime with his gun, which would explain why he does not want the authorities to know he has one).

    In any case, this is how democracy works. The citizenry lets their elected officials know what their opinions are on an issue, then - when they determine that enough of their constituents are in agreement - they Represent their will by proposing or supporting legislation.

    Support was very high for eliminating the background chech loopholes. Because (it was 90 percent, I believe) viewed that as reasonable. But it went nowhere because the (industry driven) NRA opposed it (support was high even among NRA members... Proof that this organization is NOT "member driven").

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is also the opinion of MANY other people. People opposed to gun crime, unlike dmarks. And criminals (although dmarks might be intending to commit a crime with his gun, which would explain why he does not want the authorities to know he has one)."

      And? I'm opposed to crime...not just the commission of a crime involving the use of a firearm. My opinion is ALSO the opinion of MANY other people. When two opinions clash with regards to our legal system, we look for measurable indicators to ensure that the "will of the people" does not strip away the rights of the people. THAT is how a Constitutional Republic works. Thankfully we're not a Democracy.

      When you write: In any case, this is how democracy works. The citizenry lets their elected officials know what their opinions are on an issue...., you've torpedoed and sunk you're previous argument, without me having to lift a finger. Bravo!

      Support was very high for eliminating the background chech loopholes.

      Yep, support WAS very high in that specific poll, due to the way the question was phrased. Once people realized that no, you cannot walk into a gun show or on the internet, and purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer without a background check - and that the idea that mandating a citizen-paid background check for a private transaction between two consenting citizens [something that you wouldn't support in regards to any other enumerated, Constitutional right] - support dropped like a rock.

      Fantasies about the gun industry driving polling or legislative policy aside, your statement about the NRA not being member driven is fundamentally unsupportable. You've provided not a shred of proof, but merely another opinion. You are aware of what constitutes proof aren't you?

      Delete
    2. Completely unsupported, CI. The NRA has entirely voluntary membership, and you have to make an effort to be involved, support it, and give it money. If the members don't like what it does, they won't join it. The membership numbers tell a lot more than misleading and misinterpreted poll numbers.

      Delete
    3. dmarks - Agreed. I should be surprised that someone who's camp has less members total [gun control groups] than the NRA alone [not to mention SAF, GOA and the myriad of others] would attempt to play that card....aside from the gun lobby = NRA script....

      Delete
    4. how about this for reasonable gun legislation:

      Mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun offenders like this. Instead of the slap on the wrist and the walk free if they ended up getting. That's very reasonable, perhaps. And it doesn't hassle people who have never done anything wrong.

      And CI, what if these violent offenders had broken into your home and threatened to kill your daughters instead of the Grays? Just curious how it would have ended up.

      Anyway, I sure hope the Grays are armed and ready next time. Wallace is running loose, after all.

      Delete
    5. No question on how it would have ended....one less oxygen theif.

      Delete
  7. CI: I'm opposed to crime... ... involving the use of a firearm.

    You can SAY you are, but your non-support for policies that will reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals proves otherwise. I don't believe you.

    CI: Thankfully we're not a Democracy.

    I'm thankful that we are a Democracy. You say "THAT is how a Constitutional Republic works", but bills like the last one you objected to still get proposed. If what you say was true Rosa DeLauro's legislation would have been examined and found to "strip away the rights of the people" (your framing) and not proposed. Yet every time there is a mass shooting such legislation *is* proposed. And such legislation was passed. Reagan signed an assault weapons ban (on fully automatic weapons) "which was supported by gun rights advocates". Although you would no doubt say Reagan (in signing that legislation) was "viewing Constitutional rights subjectively".

    dmarks: Mandatory minimum sentences...

    dmarks wishes to punish after the crime is committed instead of making any attempt to prevent the crime. This is the typical Libertarian approach. Mandatory minimums are bad in that they disallow judges or juries from examining the particulars of the crime and choose an appropriate sentence. I oppose them. The main reason for their existence is to enrich the private prison industry. No surprise that dmarks supports making it easy for a criminal to get a gun, then long prison sentences after the crime is committed (and an innocent victim may be dead). Because this course of action funnels the maximum amount of money to both the gun manufacturers and the private prison industry.

    CIP: No question on how it would have ended... one less oxygen thief.

    A typical Rightwing/Libertarian fantasy, I'd guess. Although they claim that brandishing is enough to deter crime, what they really dream about is the opportunity to end the life of a fellow human. And I'd think that seeing someone executed in front of her eyes would cause more trauma to the Gray's daughter than being robbed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can SAY you are, but your non-support for policies that will reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals proves otherwise. I don't believe you.

      I don't care if you believe me, you aren't proven me wrong. You point to policies that only affect the law abiding and then attempt to correlate them with criminal acts. Your premise isn't working.

      And while you accuse of fantasizing, for eliminating an armed intruder who is in my home.....as someone who has taken lives, I can assure you that it is both no fantasy....and that when forced to choose between eliminating the aggressor or having myself and /or family eliminated.....you know how I will choose.

      I feel sad for you and yours, that you would not choose likewise.

      Delete
    2. Excellent point, CI. It is indeed disturbing that in the situation where an armed criminal would break into a house and threaten to kill the homeowner's daughter(s), Mr. Sanders errs on the side of letting the assailant have their way. Instead of being on the side of the victims.

      Delete
  8. And as expected, continued "arguments " to defend actual gun criminals along with condemnation of law-abiding citizens.

    And, no, I have never supported making it easier for criminals to get guns. Not ever.

    And yes, why not long sentences for serious crimes? That's far better than Mr Sanders continually supporting punishments for those who haven't broken any law.

    And there you have it, CI. Someone here defending the right of people to break into someone's home and threaten to murder their daughter(s). I think you have the correct idea on this, CI.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And CI, Should this tragedy ever befall you? Aim for the head. But I assume you already know this.

    An effective kill shot, since someone here is whining about the cost of keeping dangerous felons in prison.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never aim for the head, always aim for center mass. Head shots are for the movies.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the correction on the head shot!
      I do defer to those with more knowledge.

      I don't defer to those who revel in ignorance and keep mentioning " assault weapons".

      Delete
  10. dmarks: I have never supported making it easier for criminals to get guns. Not ever.

    You voiced your STRONG support for this in your comment with the timestamp of April 16, 2015 at 6:22 AM.

    dmarks: ...as expected, continued "arguments" to defend actual gun criminals along with condemnation of law-abiding citizens.

    I've seen zero such arguments. WHO do you think made them?

    dmarks: ...entirely voluntary membership

    The NRA inflates membership numbers by offering discounts and freebies through their corporate affiliates. I can easily imagine someone joining and remaining a member even if they don't agree with much of the NRA's industry-driven agenda.

    dmarks: Aim for the head. ...An effective kill shot...

    Like I said previously, dmarks is extremely eager to shoot and kill a "violent thug". I would not be surprised at all if something like this happened.

    CI: Once people realized that no, you cannot walk into a gun show or on the internet, and purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer without a background check...

    I don't know how anyone could "realize" something that isn't true. Some people may have been duped by NRA propaganda, I'll buy that. But I seriously doubt "support dropped like a rock". I bet my life this never happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction regarding the following exchange...

      dmarks: ...as expected, continued "arguments" to defend actual gun criminals along with condemnation of law-abiding citizens.

      Dervish Sandes: I've seen zero such arguments. WHO do you think made them?


      I have seen arguments defending "actual gun criminals". dmarks made them. He said he supported criminals buying guns without a background check. Which is STRONG support for actual gun criminals.

      I did not see, however, any condemnation of law-abiding citizens. Although maybe dmarks is talking about himself again (and some condemnation he just thought and did not type)? If that is the case, for what do you condemn law abiding citizens, dmarks? I'm curious.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. The NRA inflates membership numbers by offering discounts and freebies through their corporate affiliates.

      As do companies the world over. If your going to rest your premise on an assertion that the NRA is not member driven [with their over 5 million members] and the membership election of the board of officers......but rather takes it' 'marching orders' from the gun industry.....the lets you could do is have a little integrity and provide some sort of foundation for these charges.

      But, you have a track record of not answering to the charges levied against your own camp....so I suppose asking you this is akin t peeing up a rope.

      Delete
    4. I don't know how anyone could "realize" something that isn't true.

      You'll have to detail which "isn't true".

      And you speak of NRA propaganda.....why do you ignore gun control propaganda?

      Delete
    5. Mr. Sanders said that I give strong support for actual gun criminals. Not true at all: I proposed harsh punishment for them, And he objected.

      Instead, we get what CI calls "You point to policies that only affect the law abiding and then attempt to correlate them with criminal acts."

      Delete
    6. CI: ...have a little integrity and provide some sort of foundation for these charges.

      Wayne LaPierre Does Not Speak for Most Gun Owners or NRA Members (article excerpt) Nearly three quarters (74 percent) of NRA members supported requiring background checks for all gun sales... This finding corroborates another poll this month by the New York Times and CBS News which found that 85 percent of people in households with an NRA member support universal background checks.

      ...62 percent of non-gun owners, and 54 percent of gun owners, support a ban on sem-automatic weapons. ...51 percent of gun owners favor a ban on the on-line sale of ammunition... [End excerpt]

      dmarks: Mr. Sanders said that I give strong support for actual gun criminals. ...I proposed harsh punishment for them, And he objected.

      I said it because it is true. You stated that you believe gun buyers should not be "hassled" with a BG check. A BG check is only a hassle for someone who could not pass one. And i oppose mandatory minimums beceause they have been shown not to work.

      Delete
    7. A BG check is only a hassle for someone who could not pass one.

      Yet you are wrong. I pass a background check every time I purchase a firearm, and I consider it a hassle. Unsupportable blanket assertions are intellectually lazy. Why do you rely on them?

      Delete
    8. CI: Who's word should I trust on whether or not a BG check is a hassle?

      Someone who has been through them several times?

      Or someone who has never been through one at all?

      Delete
  11. Mr. Sanders asked
    "for what do you condemn law abiding citizens, dmarks? I'm curious."

    What kind of question is THIS???

    Why should I condemn law-abiding citizens? Shakes head...

    But it does shed light on the mind that wants to protect violent criminals while clobbering the law-abiding.

    ReplyDelete
  12. " He said he supported criminals buying guns without a background check."

    And no, I feel no need to defend an argument I've never made ever at all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You're the one who said someone was doing this. I guessed you were referring to yourself. Anyway, I don't know why you're asking "What kind of question is THIS???" When YOU are the one who asked it.

    dmarks: But it does shed light on the mind that wants to protect violent criminals while clobbering the law-abiding.

    You're referring to yourself again, right? I know I sure as hell never said I was in favor of anything like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You always do, Mr. Sanders. Your "reasonable" gun laws ( a laughable use of the word by you) always go after law-abiding citizens.

      Delete
    2. dmarks: Your "reasonable" gun laws... always go after law-abiding citizens.

      I'm not a legislator. None of these proposed laws are "mine". As for "going after law-abiding citizens", dmarks supports these people being "gone after" with guns purchased without background checks and robbed and/or murdered with them. Which is a lot worse than minorly inconveniencing someone (if that) with a reasonable regulation. dmarks may laugh about gun violence, but most people take it seriously.

      Delete
    3. You don't mind 'free speech zones' right? After all, it's only a minor inconvenience to you and your Constitutional right, and seems quite reasonable to some people.

      Delete
    4. Dervish said: "I'm not a legislator".

      CI, one sure sign there IS a God in Heaven!

      Delete
  14. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the meaningful contribution. Jersey. I'll be checking this out in the morning.

      Delete
    2. Hmmmm....when back at home [currently still in Europe] I carry most days, and have never initiated aggression against my fellow citizen. The study used the term Confederate properly, but as it's not often used in that context these days.....it comes off as a bit loaded.

      Delete
    3. CI: Question: Would you think that mandatory stiff sentences for those convicted serious assaultive gun crimes might be a "reasonable" gun law?

      (It might help a lot with the problem of criminals getting guns, background checks, etc: there'd be fewer dangerous felons out there buying them).

      Just a thought, question. I welcome responses from CI, of course, but also Will, Jersey, and Silver.

      Delete
    4. dmarks: ...mandatory stiff sentences for those convicted serious assaultive gun crimes might be a "reasonable" gun law?

      No.

      From Heritage: ...mandatory minimum sentences are not cost-effective. The certainty of arrest, prosecution, conviction, and punishment has a greater deterrent effect than the severity of punishment. If a one-year sentence for a crime has the same deterrent effect as a five-year sentence, the additional four years of imprisonment inflict unnecessary pain on the offender being incarcerated and, to borrow from economics, impose a “dead weight” loss on society. Mandatory minimum sentences, therefore, waste scarce criminal justice resources.

      Mandatory minimums have been shown to not deter crime. dmarks, who always favors lower taxes, wants to increase costs to government by locking up people for longer periods of time just to get them off the streets. Even if DAs and judges, using their judgement and examining the specifics of each particular case instead of applying one size fits all sentences, decide a lesser sentence is appropriate.

      Cruel and unusual punishment for no reason other than it causing dmarks to FEEL safer is a bad idea.

      dmarks: Thanks for the meaningful contribution. Jersey.

      The article linked to clearly states that the mere presence of guns causes some people to become more aggressive. An argument in favor of reducing the number of guns out there. Yet, if Jersey had made this point dmarks likely would have disagreed.

      dmarks probably believes Jersey's contribution was "meaningful" because Jersey didn't contradict anything he said. dmarks can't handle anyone contradicting him.

      Delete
    5. We already have a prison system that resembles the 7th Circle of Hell, and sentencing stiffer than Al Gore on viagra, so I really don't know what the hell more you're asking, dmarks. If anything, our prison system PRODUCES more violent crime than it prevents, so... I think we're already doing what you're asking.

      If you really want to reduce violent crime, or at least having fewer thugs with guns running around out there, STOP SENDING PEOPLE TO PRISON FOR NON-VIOLENT VICTIMLESS OFFENSES. Prison, in this stupid, vengeful, nosy country, is nothing but Violent Criminal University.

      JMJ

      Delete
    6. ...STOP SENDING PEOPLE TO PRISON FOR NON-VIOLENT VICTIMLESS OFFENSES.

      Jersey, I agree with this completely. And the nonsensical and misnomered "war on drugs"

      Delete
    7. Hey Jersey... I'm on board with ending the "war on drugs", which would clean out a lot of the prisons and solve a lot of the problems.

      But my being on board with that does not mean I am on board with keeping very dangerous offenders, such as Wallace, who assaulted a little girl, out of prison. Surely you see a difference between drug offenders and men like Wallace?

      And yes, I agree with your ALL CAPS MESSAGE. But the man in discussion here was violent, and had victims.

      Thanks for your good questions...

      Delete
    8. I have no problem with stiff sentencing for violent criminal offense. I would, however, like to see serious reform of our penal system. If anything, I would imagine the non-violent guys are somewhat positive influence on the violent guys. Take them out and the violent guys will have only the other violent guys and man 'o man will we have uber-violent dudes after that!

      JMJ

      Delete
    9. I wouldn't be surprised if the reverse is also true. Non-violent criminals with prison run just as much risk fir being negatively influenced by violent felons.

      Delete
  15. "Cruel and unusual punishment..."

    No where have I advocated that.

    This piece of trash in the parent item. broke into a house (one felony), burglarized it (another), threatened people with bodily harm or death (more crimes), making illegal use of a weapon (at least one crime). There's probably more.

    Wanting such a man to serve 5 years, instead of what he got (walking free) is by NO standard "cruel" or "unusual".

    And once again, we see Dervish, who favors punishing law-abiding people, wanting serious criminals to escape justice.

    Well, that answer from Dervish sure canarded the topic up. As expected. Waiting for some reasoned responses from those whom I named.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know why the individual in question received the sentence he did, nor did I say I agreed with it. The "parent post" does not contain enough information for me to reach a conclusion in regards to if it was appropriate or not.

      Also, I'm not a attorney, prosecutor, or judge and therefore trust "my betters" on these matters. Unlike the "armchair" attorney/prosecutor/judge dmarks I trust those with the training and experience to make such decisions.

      dmarks not trusting his betters does not equal me "wanting serious criminals to escape justice". That is a canard.

      dmarks: ...canarded...

      This is not a real word.

      Delete
    2. Interesting that Dervish now wants more evidence before passing judgment. Note that it regards a criminal.

      Delete
    3. Wrong. I did not say I want more evidence. I said I needed more information regarding the evidence that already exists to make up my mind. CI apparently is very eager to impose maximum punishments without knowing all the facts and contrary to what experienced prosecutors and judges determine is appropriate. I expect dmarks to scold CI for his armchair judgements (note: i mean this sarastically as the hypocrite dmarks does not apply his criticisms to those he agrees with politically).

      Delete
    4. And on top of that, CI. he wants to burden and punish people who have never been convicted, arrested, or even suspected of a crime without any evidence at all. It's real rich....

      By the way, I find this discussion overall educational. I have learned stuff that those with more knowledge of firearms and law know (like about the head shot). I also learn all the more how empty and illogical the "gun control camp' is.

      The arguments of both you, CI, and Dervish end up making the Constitutional rights, sound public policy, sensible approach look better. Dervish does at least as much damage to the "gun control" case as you do. C.I.

      Delete
    5. Wrong. I did not say I want more evidence. I said I needed more information regarding the evidence that already exists to make up my mind.

      Well, you certainly win the convoluted wordplay award of the day. But I understand why you are forced to do so.

      CI apparently is very eager to impose maximum punishments without knowing all the facts and contrary to what experienced prosecutors and judges determine is appropriate.

      I'll wait for you to source where I've made my position known on maximum punishments.

      Delete
    6. Dervish does at least as much damage to the "gun control" case as you do. C.I.

      The gun control lobby has always been their own worst enemy.

      Delete
    7. "I'll wait for you to source where I've made my position known on maximum punishments."

      The only "maximum punishment" discussed so far here was the idea that the animal in discussion should have served at least some hard time, instead of walk free. Dervish called this idea "cruel and unusual".

      It seems pretty clear that he wants actual gun criminals to walk free (from this example) and law-abiding gun owners to be treated as criminals. He pretty much accused me of being a criminal earlier in this discussion when I mentioned taking advantage of legal options to purchase a firearm legally.

      Delete
    8. He did not "walk free". He received 5 years probation, during which time he could be sent to prison if he violates his parole. And when I refered to "cruel and unusual" I was talking about mandatory minimums and not this specific individual's sentence. But you know that, as I already noted that I do not know if the sentence in question is appropriate. The armchair attorney dmarks disagrees, but I will defer to his betters.

      dmarks: I mentioned taking advantage of legal options to purchase a firearm legally.

      And yet criminals can buy guns at gun shows and through private sales. dmarks argues this is legal, but should it be? If you want criminals to be able to buy guns (like dmarks) you'll say yes.

      Delete
    9. Mr. Sanders said"And yet criminals can buy guns at gun shows and through private sales."

      And then he continued with a purely imaginary statement:
      "dmarks argues this is legal,"

      There are in fact laws against felons having firearms. Some of there are discussed here: "Top 10 Things to know about Federal Gun Law.

      I am in favor of these laws. I am also opposed to violations of them. Of course! and I have never indicated that I support criminals violating these laws.

      But that didn't stop Mr. Sanders from making the entirely false statement, twice in the above comment, and several times elsewhere, that I support these laws being violated.

      Delete
  16. Mr. Sanders whined again "note: i mean this sarastically as the hypocrite dmarks does not apply his criticisms to those he agrees with politically"

    Life's not fair. Start making sound arguments and you can run with the big dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And yes when Mr. Sanders said "CI apparently is very eager to impose maximum punishments", he is clearly flying off the handle.

    It's clear that CI has indeed never said a thing about it. never answered my question about his view on it (which is fine. if i ask someone a question and they ignore it, I don't whine and make up stuff). My own statements imply support for it, at least to the point where several criminals with multiple violent offenses deserve some punishment by the criminal justice system.

    The way Mr. Sanders is playing it, if he were in traffic court and represented himself as his own attorney, he'd probably end up getting himself convicted of aggravated arson.

    ReplyDelete
  18. dmarks whined: Life's not fair. Start making sound arguments and you can run with the big dogs.

    The "big dogs" are all hypocrites who dodge and distract when called in their hypocrisy? Obviously this is what dmarks believes. I disagree.

    dmarks: It seems pretty clear that he wants actual gun criminals to walk free.

    BS. This is dmarks whining about me calling him out on his support for allowing criminals to buy guns.

    CI: Well, you certainly win the convoluted wordplay award of the day. But I understand why you are forced to do so.

    I wasn't "forced" to do anything. I pointed out what you said is nonsense. You couldn't refute this so you came up with some "convoluted wordplay" ad hominem to cover up this fact.

    CI: The gun control lobby has always been their own worst enemy.

    The worst enemy of those who seek to curb firearm violence with reasonable gun control measures are the gun manufacturers and the huge sums of money they spend (via their lobbying arm, the NRA) to buy off our legislators and dupe the gullible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting, yes interesting. Someone who claims to be so in favor of democracy, and when we get the actual Constitutional version of democracy (our representative republic), working properly.... and our legislators act to protect our basic rights, they get accused of being "bought off" .

      There's the hypocrisy... democracy is to be defended unless it goes against our personal views. Then the conspiracy theories float to the surface.

      Delete
  19. PART I of 2: RESPONSES TO CI...

    CI: I should be surprised that someone who's camp has less members total [gun control groups] than the NRA alone...

    Only a minority of US gun owners are members of the NRA.

    CI: And you speak of NRA propaganda... why do you ignore gun control propaganda?

    Because there isn't any to ignore. You refer to proposed reasonable gun control regulations. Factual information to further the argument in favor of using reasonable regulations to save lives isn't "propaganda".

    CI: I pass a background check every time I purchase a firearm, and I consider it a hassle.

    Yet you are wrong. It is only a minor inconvenience. Worth it because people who should not buy guns are prevented from doing so in background check situations. And you're in the minority on this one, as BG checks receive very high support from the public.

    CI: You don't mind 'free speech zones' right? After all, it's only a minor inconvenience to you and your Constitutional right...

    I support all reasonable regulations on the Bill of Rights, as I previously noted. When speech is directed at inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action it can be legally restricted. The "free speech zone" concept isn't a reasonable restriction because it restricts speech with no regard to whether or not that speech is directed at inciting.

    CI: I'll wait for you to source where I've made my position known on maximum punishments.

    Source your comment from April 16, 2015 at 12:15 PM in which you say "No question on how it would have ended... one less oxygen thief".

    Maximum penalty = Death.

    CI: But, you have a track record of not answering to the charges levied against your own camp.

    Give one example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only a minority of US gun owners are members of the NRA.

      And? Only a fraction of the number of NRA members belong to gun control groups. I’m not an NRA member. What is your point?

      Because there isn't any to ignore.

      Just tally the examples I've given you, that you've failed to refute.

      Yet you are wrong.

      You fail to understand that you don't get to tell people what inconveniences them. I mean, you can.....but you look foolish.

      Maximum penalty = Death

      You’ve confused self defense with a judicial penalty. Why?

      Give one example.

      The comments section of this blog is rife with examples….pick one that I’ve proffered and refute it. You haven’t had the integrity to do so yet.

      Delete
    2. Give one example.

      Seriously, pick one. I dare you. I would suggest starting with "assault weapons". Please.

      Delete
    3. CI said: " I would suggest starting with "assault weapons". Please."

      I will know that someone has started to get serious about learning, discussing, debating, when they stop using the "assault weapons" term. which only proves ones ignorance about firearms (as i said before, similar to bringing dragons to a serious discussion of paleobiology)

      Delete
  20. PART 2 of 2: RESPONSES TO dmarks...

    dmarks: Someone here defending the right of people to break into someone's home and threaten to murder their daughter(s). Mr. Sanders errs on the side of letting the assailant have their way. Instead of being on the side of the victims.

    No one did this, as such "rights" do not exist. Nor should they. As for resolving a criminal situation without anyone getting killed - YES, I value all human life, unlike those who refer to their fellow humans as "trash" or "oxygen thieves". The purpose of our criminal justice system is (claimed to be) rehabilitation. Conservative and Libertarian types are obviously interested in killing/retribution only.

    I'm on the "side" of nobody being killed. I do recognize a person's right to defend themselves if there are no other options.

    dmarks: I do defer to those with more knowledge.

    Baloney. You defer only when you agree. The armchair attorney dmarks refused to defer to your betters (the prosecutor and judge who determined what the sentence for Wallace should be).

    dmarks: Instead, we get what CI calls "You point to policies that only affect the law abiding and then attempt to correlate them with criminal acts".

    I did not "attempt", I succeeded.

    dmarks: I have never indicated that I support criminals violating these laws. But that didn't stop Mr. Sanders from making the entirely false statement, twice in the above comment.

    What you advocate amounts to the "honor system". dmarks says trust everyone to be completely honest when asked if they can legally purchase a gun. Not trusting is doing a BG check, and both CI and dmarks have said they "hassle" people to much. My statement was entirely true.

    dmarks: ...our legislators act to protect our basic rights, they get accused of being "bought off".

    Look at who contributes to their campaigns. This is no "conspiracy theory", it is a part of the public record. This is similar to dmarks' claim above that I view ignorance as a virtue. "Ignorance" is not knowing - it isn't knowing but disagreeing. dmarks is obviously ignorant when it comes to the definition of the word "ignorance".

    In any case, I'd think that someone who is Libertarian inclined would be against "special interests" lobbying our legislators. But, obviously, they only oppose such influence when those they disagree with do it (and use pejoratives like "big labor" and "union bosses").

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do recognize a person's right to defend themselves if there are no other options.

      So tell me, if an armed intruder enters your home and threatens your family...what is the "reasonable" metric for when you decide there are "no other options"? I'm curious.

      Realizing of course, if you have no means of defending yourself against an armed intruder, your "options" are largely meaningless.

      Delete
    2. CI said: "Realizing of course, if you have no means of defending yourself against an armed intruder, your "options" are largely meaningless."

      Exactly.. .and someone's policies here would leave the criminals well armed (and running loose right after committing a violent crime, as per this example in the post) while law-abiding citizens would be harassed with many different un-"reasonable" laws designed by the government to punish people who did not wrong for daring to have guns.

      Delete
    3. CI: ...if you have no means of defending yourself...

      Hide or run away.

      dmarks: ...someone's policies here would leave the criminals well armed...

      Exactly. Someone = dmarks.

      dmarks: ...running loose right after committing a violent crime, as per this example.

      The "example" you refer to concerns s prosecutor and judge (dmarks' betters) deciding on a sentence. People with the education and experience that qualifies them to make such decisions. Unlike the armchair attorney dmarks.

      Delete
  21. dmarks: Instead, we get what CI calls "You point to policies that only affect the law abiding and then attempt to correlate them with criminal acts".

    Above I said I succeeded in doing this, but neglected to point out the fallacy of "policies that only affect the law abiding". They affect the non law abiding by stopping them from purchasing a gun. The law-abiding are affected in that they are "hassled" by having their permits approved. A terrible outcome, I know... the criminal stopped and the law-abing citizen approved. I can understand your outrage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you believe that private transactions between consenting citizens should be regulated to the point of invasive background checks, by the State. You again are ignorant of precedence. Watch what you wish for.

      Delete
    2. CI said: "So you believe that private transactions ..."

      It appears to be the case. Remember Mr. Sander's claim that I had criminal intent, if i were going to purchase a firearm using one of two different legal means to do so. So much of Mr. Sanders argument here is based on the urge to have government act on an automatic assumption of guilt for everyone.

      Why else would he advocate laws that punished everyone, and not just criminals. If he actually advocated something that only went after criminals (and followed the due process of the Constitution... unlike everything else he wants), he might actually, for the very first time, be advocating "Reasonable" gun laws.

      Delete
  22. "What you advocate amounts to the "honor system". dmarks says trust everyone to be completely honest when asked if they can legally purchase a gun"

    The honor system is in the Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty. You, in a distinct contrast, want to punish and harass law abiding citizens without even suspicion thy have done any crime.

    We already knew you hated the Second Amendment. Not surprising that the rest of the Constitution is coming under fire.

    ReplyDelete
  23. dmarks: The honor system is in the Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty.

    We were not discussing people who are innocent and not proven guilty. We were discussing violent felons buying guns. dmarks trusts them while I do not. Or he thinks it's OK for violent felons to allowed to buy guns. Most people disagree with the dmarks' position.

    We already knew you hated the Second Amendment. Not surprising that the rest of the Constitution is coming under fire.

    You can't "know" something that is not true. As for bogus claims of the Constitution being "under fire" from me, I'm not the one imaging it contains things it does not.

    ReplyDelete
  24. We were not discussing people who are innocent and not proven guilty.

    Wrong, we've been discussing the only people who would be applicable under gun control regulations, the law abiding.

    You can't "know" something that is not true.

    Wrong again. You have stated that you "know" that I am not 'hassled' when undergoing a NICs check when I purchase a firearm. YOU cannot "know" something that is not true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI: we've been discussing the only people who would be applicable under gun control regulations, the law abiding.

      Well, OF COURSE you only wish to discuss these people - and ignore that people who shouldn't be buying them can under the system you favor. Just like you ignored the fact that that Indiana "religious freedom" law may enable discrimination. Because your megalomania causes you to only be concerned about your own rights. Even if exercising your rights infringes on the rights of others.

      Delete
  25. CI said: "Wrong again. You have stated that you "know" that I am not 'hassled' when undergoing a NICs check when I purchase a firearm. YOU cannot "know" something that is not true."

    This again? And how can anyone expect to believe the word of someone with an irrational phobia over guns who has never undergone a BG check, over someone who has gone through several...

    Dervish is once again an expert in matters he is proud to have no knowledge of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not even being an expert in a given subject, with Dervish it's the childish pomposity to state what others believe...sans any foundation whatsoever.

      Delete
    2. CI, and this is just on our Second Amendment rights.

      Delete
    3. CI At least as bad is his disrespect for our rights and liberties, so often to the point where if he doesn't like it personally, it must be outlawed.

      To be honest I don't own any firearms. However, CI, I don't know your life. You do. I respect your own right to make informed choices to own weapons, as per the Bill of Rights. (As an aside, I welcome learning more about this matter, and if I am corrected on something I am wrong on, like headshots, I won't have a tantrum).

      I also respect Dervish's right (based on gross ignorance and phobias as it were) to never own any. I suspect you have no problem with him exercising that right also.

      There's only one of these three sides, represented by the individuals named above in this comment, that is intrusive, megalomaniac, and with a childish arrogance that his opinion must be forced on everyone by law. Any guesses?

      Delete
  26. CI: ...with Dervish it's the childish pomposity to state what others believe.

    If you say so. Although dmarks does this and you say nothing (see below).

    dmarks: ...Dervish's right (based on gross ignorance and phobias as it were) to never own any. ...intrusive, megalomaniac, and with a childish arrogance that his opinion must be forced on everyone by law.

    I have no "arrogance" or "megalomania" that causes me to want my opinion "forced" on anyone. I simply believe reasonable gun regulation will save lives as such regulations have in other countries. I also acknowledge law-abiding citizens have the right to own a gun and the right to defend themselves. As the SCOTUS has affirmed.

    My preference would be a compromise between those who concentrate on gun owners rights and those who think reasonable regulations would save lives. But I am a realist who realizes this will likely not happen due to the money on the other side (gun manufacturers and NRA) plus the unwillingness of gun owners/adherants to compromise (people like CI and dmarks). This does not change my opinion, however (an opinion not based on ignorance).

    It doesn't surprise me, however, that the gun nut camp views a desire for compromise in order to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and save lives as "megalomania". You're attempting to browbeat people into accepting your position instead of respectfully accepting someone might have an opinion that differs from yours without the name calling. There is no need for it since your side is winning anyway.

    And, no, I do not believe my use of the term "gun nut" to be name calling. You live up to it reference to "disrespect for our rights and liberties" that does not exist. dmarks is the perfect example of childish gun nut who stamps his feet and whines and complains simply because someone expresses an opinion that differs from his own. He's getting exactly what he wants, but it isn't good enough. He DEMANDS anyone who disagrees shut the hell up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One simple question for you, should you have the integrity to answer it [I've not ever received an answer to this question from anyone on the gun control camp]:

      What is the compromise on behalf of the gun control camp? The 2nd Amendment has already been more infringed upon than any other Constitutionally enumerated right, and to levels that those in the gun control camp would not remotely accept in regards to any other right.

      Where is, and where has been, your compromise?

      Delete
    2. Mr. Sanders said: "He DEMANDS anyone who disagrees shut the hell up."

      Not at all. It would just be better if your political views favored allowing law-abiding citizens like CI to live their life unhindered. If you can stop gun criminals without affecting him one bit, that would be great. I don't want you to "shut up", but it sure would be nice if your political views weren't all about forcing your own personal preferences on everyone in the country.

      "It doesn't surprise me, however, that the gun nut camp views a desire for compromise in order to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals"

      It would not surprise me if your side, and the Constitutional side (which you continue to use the lowbrow smear "gun nut") both want guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

      However, there is a huge difference when it comes to law-abiding citizens. Your side wants to punish, hinder and deny the rights of them as well.

      I'm all for solutions that only go after the bad guys. I strongly oppose solutions that go after people who have not done anyting wrong.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.