From Joan’s Comments Texas TopCat says:
“there a time when the citizens of a country need to decide what kind of country they want?” – good question. Now, for me it is a place where individuals are responsible for their own protection (SCOTUS Castle Rock) and that where the only people not allowed tools for that protection are protected by police due to a special relationship, like Secret Service Detail or locked up in prison.
We have perfect examples in prohibition and “the drug war” as to the results of government attempting to be involved in things that they should not be involved in.
Great comment, and Joan’s Response:
This would be a world where no lawful authority exists and anarchy would result. This is a dangerous world for sure and not what most Americans want.
Perfect Non-sequitur there! Just like the antis response to “We don’t need NEW laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have, and repeal the ones that only effect the lawful!” to which they respond! “So you want to get rid of stop signs and murder laws? YOU WANT ANARCHY!!!!!”
No, Anarchy is what we have now. We have gangs ruling our inner city with illegal drugs and illegal guns, and the police don’t enforce those laws because it is dangerous to do so. When a career criminal goes before a judge he plea bargains and gets away with the majority of his crimes and is back on the street.
We have DEA agents sending SWAT teams into homes where career criminals have tipped them off that there may be drugs. We have wire trappings, we have egregious searches and seizures looking for a dime-bag of pot.
We have guns being sent over the border to cartel soldiers by US officials, and a stream of illegal aliens who are not being prosecuted for their crimes.
Still the solution to these issues is NOT more laws, and more laws are what “Progressives” always want. Laws are the bars around the cage we have built for ourselves. Freedom loving people HATE the cage, while anti-freedom “Progressives” want that cage to be fortified.
They love the cage because they HATE freedom.
Oh, yeah, we’re getting it all right. If you’re pro-gun, you’re pro-anarchy (see Joan), when you’re not pro-totalitarian (see Jason). The idea of ordered liberty under the Constitution and well thought-out statutes pretty much escapes them.
Texas TopCat mentions Prohibition and our drug laws. If we’re serious about reducing gun homicides, we need to at least look at the connection between our drug laws and those laws’ unintended consequences. Drugs are not evil in themselves, and, if my memory’s okay, the 19th century was without drug laws, and those laws’ introduction piggybacked on anti-Chinese and anti-Mexican feeling. You have a bad cough, or occasional pain from a Civil War wound, you go to the pharmacist for opium. (Public drug intoxication, negligence while under a drug’s influence, forcibly administering a drug to someone, are all different stories.)
All part of the game plan for the antis — anyone pro-rights is an extremist and must be painted that way.
As is the part of completely ignoring how a person should defend themselves or who has the responsibility – legally — to defend the individual.
When a career criminal goes before a judge he plea bargains and gets away with the majority of his crimes and is back on the street.
Let’s not leave out a few key players in this little drama.
We have the cops who let some criminals continue to commit crimes because they tell the cops about supposedly worse criminals.
We have prosecutors instead of actually trying a criminal for all the charges document settling on a plea bargain that lets the thug admit to one or two and serve much less time then they deserve.
P.S. — I’m BACK (blogging)
“We have the cops who let some criminals continue to commit crimes because they tell the cops about supposedly worse criminals.”
Don’t forget how many of those “supposedly worse criminals” are not actually worse criminals, but are less hazardous to go after.
“Dimebag Darrel” spills the beans on “Kingpin Carlos,” but nothing happens. The cops already know all about him – there’s nothing new in Darrel’s information – but Kingpin is surrounded by gun-wielding thugs, you see, and that raid would be dangerous.
On the other hand, Darrel provides a tip that Granny Smith is smoking marijuana without a medical card, and SWAT pounces on her. Much safer raid, and all the officers get to go home at the end of their shifts, after “taking down” a “hardened drug criminal” (and dressing as tacticool ninjas and driving an MRAP down Main St.).
And Darrel? In return for his “cooperation,” he gets to plea down five felony “possession with intent to distribute” charges to one misdemeanor, get sentenced to probation, and do it all again next week.
There you go: three “Bad Justice” scenarios, in one comment! 🙂
Archer, you’re right. When there’s Federal involvement in my area, the Kingpin Carloses may be taken out by law enforcement. Without Federal involvement, local police practice drug law crime management, or crime brokering, pretty much as you describe. We have quite a few older people arrested for heroin in my area, and there’s reasonable speculation that law enforcement is so successful at shutting down “over-prescribing” MDs and pharmacies that those older people have nowhere else to turn to relieve chronic pain.
I once spent a few months looking at our local grand jury indictments. One-third of the indictments specifically mentioned drugs: possession, distribution, paraphernalia, sometimes along with other violent and property crimes allegedly committed by the same person. Long story short: questionable laws (drugs, guns) provide jobs for police, and I’m pretty damned sure they know it.
“We have guns being sent over the boarder”
I give up, I just do.
Grahhh! Fixed and mnemonic being installed in my broken brain!
I honestly thought of you when typing and said “which is the right one…I think this is!”
As I said, this has happened enough I’m working up a stupid mnemonic so hopefully it won’t happen again unless I’m not paying attention
You got a good heart there Weerd. I’m happy to note that you also have a fine sense of humor.
I have a crass and filthy sense of humor, and your comments do not reflect well on your character, my good man! 😉
I have no excuse for my behavior aside from being born in the ’50’s, and taught (under the switch) to handle it.
Or as a wise man once offered the posit, “I resemble that remark”.