Quote of the Day
For long time my own take is that if a person is too dangerous to have arms, they are too dangerous to be out running around free. Obviously those who wish to curtail or eliminate our right to arms think otherwise. As a society we simply MUST convict and lock away or do away with violent felons. Society’s tolerance of violent criminals is dumbfounding.
Carl from Chicago
July 12, 2023
Comment to Of Arms and the Law: Supreme Court case: US v. Rahimi
I’ve been saying that first sentence since at least the late 1990’s. Can anyone honestly demonstrate that it is wrong in some way?
It just seems so obvious and correct. Why doesn’t it catch on? What am I missing? Other than, of course, those in power don’t really want the violent crime problem solved.
I’ve been saying too.
Some people just look at you with that fish out of water face. It’s like they can’t even comprehend it. Well, that’s because they don’t.
“Other than, of course, those in power don’t really want the violent crime problem solved.”
Bingo! Everyone, even the communists know there’s a criminal problem. It’s right there in their play book. Open the prisons to do crime everyone needs you to fix. And squeeze the middle-class out of existence. Poverty, murder, mayhem, evil for fun of it.
85% are powerless to do anything about it. the other 15% are bought off, brainwashed, or just,,,, stupid. And some love the pain they inflict on humanity.
Obvious and correct are going to continue to be ignored. In favor of destruction until we find a backbone and away to impose them. With manly force whenever necessary.
Like granny said. “Society and government are always going to be as bad as you allow them to get.”
And with the rapid importation of the machete caste into our snowflake society. Were about to find out the ugly way what “bad”, means.
Pols want crime as an issue to run on, as an excuse for ever-more Draconian laws to fight it (.i.e. give them more power). If they actually solved the problem then they’d have no campaign issues or boondoggles.
But you know that, of course.
Yes. They’d have to get honest jobs.
There is an evil partnership between the people who make our lives dangerous and the politicians who enable them and get wealthy off of them. The third group is the powerful people behind the scenes who want more power over the rest of us and use the first two groups to get to that goal.
Violent crime and criminals are politically useful to the left. That’s why the left doesn’t want to actually do anything that might curtail crime and criminals.
“…if a person is too dangerous to have arms, they are too dangerous to be out running around free.”
A perfectly reasonable position, stated succinctly, and to good purpose in a (supposedly) free society with full individual rights
So, as a thought exercise, what is to be done with such people?
Australia, Georgia and Devil’s Island were created as penal colonies, as were Russia’s various gulags, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio built a “tent city” in Arizona for local miscreants; there is a multutude of prisons – frequently labeled as “Departments of Corrections” – of different security levels world wide, so “secure warehousing” is one option, and one with an easily trackable performance and results history.
And, while I am loathe to entrust any type or level of government with such power because on this planet at least, there are none not grievously corrupt and throughly incompetent, there is the execution option. In America we labor under very justifiable moral quandries about it and as a result do quite poorly at it, even, and perhaps, especially, questioning – and hampering – any potentially fatal results inflicted in self defense of life and property by victims at the scene of the crime
Prisons of yesteryear often sought to recover some of the incarceration expense by having prisoners manufacture limited types and quantities of goods for sale such as furniture, medical supplies, license plates, etc., which frequently came under fire from the private sector as government sponsored competition operating against their businesses, and more recently, prisons have operated contract call and direct mail centers for private industry. Some societies have shunned and ostracized offenders, casting them out to deny them the advantages of societal membership.
There is the “Pre-Crime Option,” characterized in the 2002 movie Minority Report, and which portions of the U.S. and some state governmental entities are currently practicing, albeit in limited, and reprehensible, form.
And, speaking of governments, “…if a person is too dangerous to have arms, they are too dangerous to be out running around free” raises questions about various national governments, such as Japan and the United Kingdom, in which no one is considered sufficiently trustworthy to possess arms, yet they are allowed to live unincarcerated.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX might be able to offer off-planet incarceration in the forseeable future, assuming there’s some mass in a solar orbit somewhere in the universe suitable for the purpose (Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone broadcast “The Lonely” in 1959 about just such a thing), but our needs are somewhat more urgent than Mr. Musk’s projected launch schedule presently offers.
“Reverse Incarceration,” in which the non-criminals deliberately jail themselves within security-monitored gated communities is a potential solution, a technique in practice for millenia as evidenced by various castles and keeps worldwide, assuming one has the funds to do so, and enough security personnel sufficiently alert and committed to their task. Some, however, consider this as a form of retreat which punishes the non-offender while granting the offender full access to the civilizational advantages available, and it does “centralize the assets” making such communities attractive targets for the motivated offender.
So, back to the original question: What do we do with those people who violate basic behavioral and legal boundaries, often repeatedly?
What makes a gun such a special device?
If a person cannot be trusted with a gun, why is it ok for them to have a rock, a knife, a stick, a car (or as I like to say – a semi-guided, kinetic energy weapon), or a can of gasoline with matches?
You make a claim that other countries don’t trust anyone with a gun – but they still let them have rocks. If they aren’t out there killing innocent people with one, then they won’t be with the other.
Again – it’s not the device, it’s the person.
If you have a violent person that you simply cannot trust to be out and about with a weapon, that means you can’t trust them with any weapon. And since anything can be a weapon, you probably should not trust them to be out and about at all. So, yes – they need to have a custodian or be locked in a place where they cannot harm others or that the others they do harm you don’t care about.
You mention Australia – Britain sent a lot of people there, but most of them were not violent. So, not an apples to apples comparison.
The costs for the US to incarcerate these types of people should not be that high. The problem is we keep letting violent people out and keep putting in non-violent. Think violent person, rather than ‘legal definition’ of felony. When there are 10,000 felony administrative federal crimes we have a problem with ‘felony inflation’ that dilutes the importance of the term.
Most violent criminals are not one off criminals. That means that most people who murder others have been committing violent crimes over and over again prior to the commission of the murder. Their victim for sure would have benefited from them not being allowed out and about.
A person who commits a VIOLENT crime should be punished far more harshly than a white collar offender.
I would be inclined to add those who scam people of their life savings, or similar actions that steal a significant portion of someone’s lifetime of effort.
I’m thinking there would be lots of politicians that could fit that label along with the typical non-government thieves.
Someone convicted of a violent crime should serve more time than someone who committed a non-violent white collar crime.