Sensible Gun Safety

[cradleandshoot]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

The potential for abusing the truth also includes the bad actors. We should without doubt or hesitation believe the words of the bad actors. It's the police that are prone to lying and the alleged criminals are the ones speaking the truth.... Do I have that right?

of course not, but we have a due process legal system not an authoritarian one.

I mean, you can live in Russia or China if you prefer...

Probably not. I remember back in the day when Ronald Reagan was my boss and Russia and China were the potential adversaries we trained to protect folks such as yourself against. Matter of fact China and Russia don't even make my bucket list of places I would ever visit someday. I never much cared for borscht or Gen. Tso's chicken.

Pretty sure you can’t order General Tso’s Chicken in China.

I'll never go there so I'll never know. I'll bet they have some sort of reasonable facsimile. Do they have fortune cookies in China or is that all a big lie?
I'll have to make sure not to miss Yan can cook from now on.

[Typical Lax Dad]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

The potential for abusing the truth also includes the bad actors. We should without doubt or hesitation believe the words of the bad actors. It's the police that are prone to lying and the alleged criminals are the ones speaking the truth.... Do I have that right?

of course not, but we have a due process legal system not an authoritarian one.

I mean, you can live in Russia or China if you prefer...

Probably not. I remember back in the day when Ronald Reagan was my boss and Russia and China were the potential adversaries we trained to protect folks such as yourself against. Matter of fact China and Russia don't even make my bucket list of places I would ever visit someday. I never much cared for borscht or Gen. Tso's chicken.

Pretty sure you can’t order General Tso’s Chicken in China.

I'll never go there so I'll never know. I'll bet they have some sort of reasonable facsimile. Do they have fortune cookies in China or is that all a big lie?
I'll have to make sure not to miss Yan can cook from now on.

I am certain you won’t.

More bad actors:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/31/nyre ... urder.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.nydailynews.com/2017/07/17/ ... 87-murder/

If they didn’t kill that guy, they would have eventually killed someone. Bad actors. They don’t deserve to have their rights protected.

[Farfromgeneva]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

Yes I’m pointing out it’s an allegation or charge. To imprison and take one’s rights away. And only with an incredibly intellectually challenged argument of hindsight, hasn’t articulated clearly any reasons to subjugate our core principals and hand that power to police whose jobs are to enforce but not adjudicate. His entire commentary to me was totally responsive and pointless.

[Farfromgeneva]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

The potential for abusing the truth also includes the bad actors. We should without doubt or hesitation believe the words of the bad actors. It's the police that are prone to lying and the alleged criminals are the ones speaking the truth.... Do I have that right?

No of course not like everything you’ve maimed it and missed any line of thought completely to make some redundant and insipid argument.

[Farfromgeneva]

A presumption of guilt is any presumption within the criminal justice system that a person is guilty of a crime, for example a presumption that a suspect is guilty unless or until proven to be innocent.[1] Such a presumption may legitimately arise from a rule of law or a procedural rule of the court or other adjudicating body which determines how the facts in the case are to be proved, and may be either rebuttable or irrebuttable. An irrebuttable presumption of fact may not be challenged by the defense, and the presumed fact is taken as having been proved. A rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of proof onto the defense, who must collect and present evidence to prove the suspect's innocence, in order to obtain acquittal.[2]

Rebuttable presumptions of fact, arising during the course of a trial as a result of specific factual situations (for example that the accused has taken flight),[3] are common; an opening presumption of guilt based on the mere fact that the suspect has been charged is considered illegitimate in many countries,[4] and contrary to international human rights standards. In the United States, an irrebuttable presumption of guilt is considered to be unconstitutional. Informal and legally illegitimate presumptions of guilt may also arise from the attitudes or prejudices of those such as judges, lawyers or police officers who administer the system. Such presumptions may result in suspects who are innocent being brought before a court to face criminal charges, with a risk of improperly being found guilty.

I love the people who couldn’t possibly know what being in jail (or prison) is like making a specious claim that having someone pre conviction be incarcerated and denied various rights, freedoms etc is beyond obnoxious and so lacking empathy as to be a viewpoint that isn’t high value.

[Farfromgeneva]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

The potential for abusing the truth also includes the bad actors. We should without doubt or hesitation believe the words of the bad actors. It's the police that are prone to lying and the alleged criminals are the ones speaking the truth.... Do I have that right?

of course not, but we have a due process legal system not an authoritarian one.

I mean, you can live in Russia or China if you prefer...

Probably not. I remember back in the day when Ronald Reagan was my boss and Russia and China were the potential adversaries we trained to protect folks such as yourself against. Matter of fact China and Russia don't even make my bucket list of places I would ever visit someday. I never much cared for borscht or Gen. Tso's chicken.

Pretty sure you can’t order General Tso’s Chicken in China.

What about spicy tuna rolls in Japan?

[cradleandshoot]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

The potential for abusing the truth also includes the bad actors. We should without doubt or hesitation believe the words of the bad actors. It's the police that are prone to lying and the alleged criminals are the ones speaking the truth.... Do I have that right?

No of course not like everything you’ve maimed it and missed any line of thought completely to make some redundant and insipid argument.

A very well put together word salad. Do you prefer a rather tart raspberry vinaigrette on top with some roasted chopped walnuts?

[Typical Lax Dad]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

The potential for abusing the truth also includes the bad actors. We should without doubt or hesitation believe the words of the bad actors. It's the police that are prone to lying and the alleged criminals are the ones speaking the truth.... Do I have that right?

of course not, but we have a due process legal system not an authoritarian one.

I mean, you can live in Russia or China if you prefer...

Probably not. I remember back in the day when Ronald Reagan was my boss and Russia and China were the potential adversaries we trained to protect folks such as yourself against. Matter of fact China and Russia don't even make my bucket list of places I would ever visit someday. I never much cared for borscht or Gen. Tso's chicken.

Pretty sure you can’t order General Tso’s Chicken in China.

What about spicy tuna rolls in Japan?

Ordering my daughter’s standard Thursday night order later today….1 salmon avocado roll, 1 spicy tuna roll, 1 California roll.

[Farfromgeneva]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

The potential for abusing the truth also includes the bad actors. We should without doubt or hesitation believe the words of the bad actors. It's the police that are prone to lying and the alleged criminals are the ones speaking the truth.... Do I have that right?

No of course not like everything you’ve maimed it and missed any line of thought completely to make some redundant and insipid argument.

A very well put together word salad. Do you prefer a rather tart raspberry vinaigrette on top with some roasted chopped walnuts?

I’ve got some nuts already and I think you know about Deez

[Farfromgeneva]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

The potential for abusing the truth also includes the bad actors. We should without doubt or hesitation believe the words of the bad actors. It's the police that are prone to lying and the alleged criminals are the ones speaking the truth.... Do I have that right?

of course not, but we have a due process legal system not an authoritarian one.

I mean, you can live in Russia or China if you prefer...

Probably not. I remember back in the day when Ronald Reagan was my boss and Russia and China were the potential adversaries we trained to protect folks such as yourself against. Matter of fact China and Russia don't even make my bucket list of places I would ever visit someday. I never much cared for borscht or Gen. Tso's chicken.

Pretty sure you can’t order General Tso’s Chicken in China.

What about spicy tuna rolls in Japan?

Ordering my daughter’s standard Thursday night order later today….1 salmon avocado roll, 1 spicy tuna roll, 1 California roll.

I’ve tired a spicy tuna roll once but really don’t like either mayo or avocado which are the binding agents in all rolls. As one might expect: I like to eat meat and just can throw down tuna and salmon sashimi to the point of toxic shock.

[Typical Lax Dad]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

The potential for abusing the truth also includes the bad actors. We should without doubt or hesitation believe the words of the bad actors. It's the police that are prone to lying and the alleged criminals are the ones speaking the truth.... Do I have that right?

of course not, but we have a due process legal system not an authoritarian one.

I mean, you can live in Russia or China if you prefer...

Probably not. I remember back in the day when Ronald Reagan was my boss and Russia and China were the potential adversaries we trained to protect folks such as yourself against. Matter of fact China and Russia don't even make my bucket list of places I would ever visit someday. I never much cared for borscht or Gen. Tso's chicken.

Pretty sure you can’t order General Tso’s Chicken in China.

What about spicy tuna rolls in Japan?

Ordering my daughter’s standard Thursday night order later today….1 salmon avocado roll, 1 spicy tuna roll, 1 California roll.

I’ve tired a spicy tuna roll once but really don’t like either mayo or avocado which are the binding agents in all rolls. As one might expect: I like to eat meat and just can throw down tuna and salmon sashimi to the point of toxic shock.

I prefer sashimi

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

Yes I’m pointing out it’s an allegation or charge. To imprison and take one’s rights away. And only with an incredibly intellectually challenged argument of hindsight, hasn’t articulated clearly any reasons to subjugate our core principals and hand that power to police whose jobs are to enforce but not adjudicate. His entire commentary to me was totally responsive and pointless.

Pardon my intellectual challenges, Geneva. You've made me realize I'm a mental minnow swimming amongst thought giants of the deep.

If we can focus granularly on my initial post regarding Mr. Nance, the police "just report the news" to the DAs/Judges who determine if charges/bail are warranted/granted (or not). Is there a new power for police I'm unaware of having been instituted? You seem to indicate that is how it works. I went back and read your words very slowly.

Tidbits from one local news report:

...Nance had an “extensive criminal history.” In early January of last year, Nance allegedly fired at a car carrying a woman. No one was hit, but he was charged in an arrest warrant with aggravated battery and recklessly firing a weapon, records show. As he was being taken into custody Jan. 27, 2023, Nance wrestled free from officers and tried to run, leading authorities to also charge him with obstruction, the records show.

So, he was a good candidate for bail and release back into society? You're the intellectual giant. You tell us.

While he was being held awaiting his bond hearing, he showed what a model guest he is:

Later the next month, Nance was charged with criminal damage to government property after he allegedly broke glass in a cell door, according to the records. Also that February, Nance was charged with a misdemeanor count of battery while still in jail. Details on that case were not immediately available.

I believe in one's constitution rights as staunchly as anyone here. My pea sized brain obviously just needs to rethink how we should simply eliminate bail entirely, even when convicted criminals are popping off rounds from their illegal firearms and resisting arrest. Mea culpa for suggesting such an upstanding career criminal be held without bail as our sick society trammels on his rights.

Reading headlines about the likes of Mr. Nance really ticks me off. And lays bare the target fixation of "sensible gun control" advocates who seemingly have no limits to the creative approaches they are deploying on behalf of a narrative which has the sole purpose of curtailing the rights of law abiding citizens who legally own and utilize firearms. Just today, Everytown dropped their post 2024 Shot Show review of how manufacturers are unleashing new and deadlier products into the marketplace. On the list - run for the hills - are new lever action rifles from Henry and Smith & Wesson. That 1837 technology is positively chilling. I am left to think the journalist who went deep undercover to expose "gun manufacturers make guns" will be winning a Pulitzer for the expose. It's right up there with last year's NYT's Lake City "ammo maker makes ammo" epic.

I have provided my thoughts on numerous aspects of "sensible" in previous posts on this thread, including red flag laws, storage, suicide, mass public shootings, and a bunch more. It's a topic I am passionate about, and this thread has a great deal of discourse I can respect and appreciate, even if I personally disagree, or half agree, regarding a particular poster's take. I do endeavor to keep my insults and snarky insinuations to a minimum. As my grandmother used to say, "An insult is a weak attempt to make someone feel small"

I shall head back to the kids table now, properly chastened. At least we have a lot more fun there!

Be well.

[MDlaxfan76]

yup, ignoring the reality of police state abuse because, hey, bad guys are on the street otherwise. I suggest waffle move to China because there's near zero street crime there. Is that "snarky" or just on point?

Convicted criminals who are violent need to be behind bars until they reform, but to abandon due process, and lock up whoever the police say, get outta here...

Meanwhile, there are violent criminals and simply random nut jobs and drunks with a gun out there already...it's tragic when anyone commits a violent crime, but locking everyone up who we suspect may do a crime because we think they may do another crime, before we've even convicted them, nope.

[Typical Lax Dad]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

Yes I’m pointing out it’s an allegation or charge. To imprison and take one’s rights away. And only with an incredibly intellectually challenged argument of hindsight, hasn’t articulated clearly any reasons to subjugate our core principals and hand that power to police whose jobs are to enforce but not adjudicate. His entire commentary to me was totally responsive and pointless.

Pardon my intellectual challenges, Geneva. You've made me realize I'm a mental minnow swimming amongst thought giants of the deep.

If we can focus granularly on my initial post regarding Mr. Nance, the police "just report the news" to the DAs/Judges who determine if charges/bail are warranted/granted (or not). Is there a new power for police I'm unaware of having been instituted? You seem to indicate that is how it works. I went back and read your words very slowly.

Tidbits from one local news report:

...Nance had an “extensive criminal history.” In early January of last year, Nance allegedly fired at a car carrying a woman. No one was hit, but he was charged in an arrest warrant with aggravated battery and recklessly firing a weapon, records show. As he was being taken into custody Jan. 27, 2023, Nance wrestled free from officers and tried to run, leading authorities to also charge him with obstruction, the records show.

So, he was a good candidate for bail and release back into society? You're the intellectual giant. You tell us.

While he was being held awaiting his bond hearing, he showed what a model guest he is:

Later the next month, Nance was charged with criminal damage to government property after he allegedly broke glass in a cell door, according to the records. Also that February, Nance was charged with a misdemeanor count of battery while still in jail. Details on that case were not immediately available.

I believe in one's constitution rights as staunchly as anyone here. My pea sized brain obviously just needs to rethink how we should simply eliminate bail entirely, even when convicted criminals are popping off rounds from their illegal firearms and resisting arrest. Mea culpa for suggesting such an upstanding career criminal be held without bail as our sick society trammels on his rights.

Reading headlines about the likes of Mr. Nance really ticks me off. And lays bare the target fixation of "sensible gun control" advocates who seemingly have no limits to the creative approaches they are deploying on behalf of a narrative which has the sole purpose of curtailing the rights of law abiding citizens who legally own and utilize firearms. Just today, Everytown dropped their post 2024 Shot Show review of how manufacturers are unleashing new and deadlier products into the marketplace. On the list - run for the hills - are new lever action rifles from Henry and Smith & Wesson. That 1837 technology is positively chilling. I am left to think the journalist who went deep undercover to expose "gun manufacturers make guns" will be winning a Pulitzer for the expose. It's right up there with last year's NYT's Lake City "ammo maker makes ammo" epic.

I have provided my thoughts on numerous aspects of "sensible" in previous posts on this thread, including red flag laws, storage, suicide, mass public shootings, and a bunch more. It's a topic I am passionate about, and this thread has a great deal of discourse I can respect and appreciate, even if I personally disagree, or half agree, regarding a particular poster's take. I do endeavor to keep my insults and snarky insinuations to a minimum. As my grandmother used to say, "An insult is a weak attempt to make someone feel small"

I shall head back to the kids table now, properly chastened. At least we have a lot more fun there!

Be well.

You want to take away Mr. Nance’s second amendment right.

[Farfromgeneva]

re the bail discussion, unless there's an actual adjudication of the strength of evidence, what waffle is saying that we should trust the police as to the strength of such evidence when it comes to crimes committed with a gun. It would be "prudent" to hold the accused perp because they may commit a subsequent crime...according to the police.

And yet waffle acknowledges the potential for abuse, the long history of abuse.

Yes I’m pointing out it’s an allegation or charge. To imprison and take one’s rights away. And only with an incredibly intellectually challenged argument of hindsight, hasn’t articulated clearly any reasons to subjugate our core principals and hand that power to police whose jobs are to enforce but not adjudicate. His entire commentary to me was totally responsive and pointless.

Pardon my intellectual challenges, Geneva. You've made me realize I'm a mental minnow swimming amongst thought giants of the deep.

If we can focus granularly on my initial post regarding Mr. Nance, the police "just report the news" to the DAs/Judges who determine if charges/bail are warranted/granted (or not). Is there a new power for police I'm unaware of having been instituted? You seem to indicate that is how it works. I went back and read your words very slowly.

Tidbits from one local news report:

...Nance had an “extensive criminal history.” In early January of last year, Nance allegedly fired at a car carrying a woman. No one was hit, but he was charged in an arrest warrant with aggravated battery and recklessly firing a weapon, records show. As he was being taken into custody Jan. 27, 2023, Nance wrestled free from officers and tried to run, leading authorities to also charge him with obstruction, the records show.

So, he was a good candidate for bail and release back into society? You're the intellectual giant. You tell us.

While he was being held awaiting his bond hearing, he showed what a model guest he is:

Later the next month, Nance was charged with criminal damage to government property after he allegedly broke glass in a cell door, according to the records. Also that February, Nance was charged with a misdemeanor count of battery while still in jail. Details on that case were not immediately available.

I believe in one's constitution rights as staunchly as anyone here. My pea sized brain obviously just needs to rethink how we should simply eliminate bail entirely, even when convicted criminals are popping off rounds from their illegal firearms and resisting arrest. Mea culpa for suggesting such an upstanding career criminal be held without bail as our sick society trammels on his rights.

Reading headlines about the likes of Mr. Nance really ticks me off. And lays bare the target fixation of "sensible gun control" advocates who seemingly have no limits to the creative approaches they are deploying on behalf of a narrative which has the sole purpose of curtailing the rights of law abiding citizens who legally own and utilize firearms. Just today, Everytown dropped their post 2024 Shot Show review of how manufacturers are unleashing new and deadlier products into the marketplace. On the list - run for the hills - are new lever action rifles from Henry and Smith & Wesson. That 1837 technology is positively chilling. I am left to think the journalist who went deep undercover to expose "gun manufacturers make guns" will be winning a Pulitzer for the expose. It's right up there with last year's NYT's Lake City "ammo maker makes ammo" epic.

I have provided my thoughts on numerous aspects of "sensible" in previous posts on this thread, including red flag laws, storage, suicide, mass public shootings, and a bunch more. It's a topic I am passionate about, and this thread has a great deal of discourse I can respect and appreciate, even if I personally disagree, or half agree, regarding a particular poster's take. I do endeavor to keep my insults and snarky insinuations to a minimum. As my grandmother used to say, "An insult is a weak attempt to make someone feel small"

I shall head back to the kids table now, properly chastened. At least we have a lot more fun there!

Be well.

Take offense or not wha you keep writing ain’t addressing what I’m saying which is fact. You’re saying go ahead and punish someone before they are convicted. That’s just not how it works no matter how much you want to inject morality and speculation into it.

Sorry you’re offended but your comments on this don’t pass the smell test.

And frankly when you’re good addressing the intimate seminal point on this when I raise it repeatedly means we’re not having anything close to a serious discussion. It simply doesn’t matter what my answer would be to your hypothetical question. It’s irrelevant and repeatedly tossed back at me like a circle jerk when we have already established that your point doesn’t matter .

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

[MDlaxfan76]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

[cradleandshoot]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Are you saying you're good with taking away the hypothetical violent offender's guns pre-conviction? The heck with "legal" or "illegal" weapon, you're saying the when police and prosecutor's feel the offender is the exact right cat they've arrested who did the violence ("Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists.") Criminal using a gun to commit the crime...who has guns, right? Just not yet convicted...judges should be able to quickly say, yup, remove the guns pending trial?

Incarceration is a heck of a lot more of restriction of one's rights than removal of guns...so, that must be your position, right?

BTW, I agree that it's "discouraging" that bail is granted to the known violent offenders. A lot of things are frustrating....another is that stiff penalties aren't often enough assessed to those who attack police without a self-defense situation. That seems more fixable than the prior.

It's also more fixable to have tougher gun registration, safety and red flag laws, stronger penalties for illegal weapons, and restrictions on high capacity weapons.

None of it is sufficient by itself, but the culture of violence and the glorification of guns is a big part of the problem.

If only the people who own illegal weapons would simply obey the law. The least they could do is register their illegal weapon. How inconsiderate of them.

[Farfromgeneva]

This is a very strange place sometimes. Made an observation about a specific incident where it was discouraging to me that an arrested party was granted bail due to the circumstances surrounding his arrest. And here we are.

I have no interest in bail being used as a punitive pre-conviction sledge hammer. I hate that our justice system nuts to bolts is a dysfunctional dumpster fire where rights and fairness are regularly lost in the maelstrom. Unacceptable. Frustrating. A serious overhaul, and the establishment of a system of oversight, are long overdue.

If Mr. Nance's 2A rights were to be taken away, it would have only been after a felony conviction by a jury of his peers. What are the posters here suggesting we do regarding bail for those arrested for violent crimes committed with illegal weapons? Let's stay on point: Legitimate arrests, where legitimate probable cause and evidence exists. Nance doesn't fit the bill? Then who does? Enlighten me. Help me understand.

Well strange is an interesting word when it’s not clear you even considered other positions. Kept repeating the same thing and not addressing my comment on your flawed argument. Strange would be credible had you played along with the rules of engagement in general society. But ignoring a direct rebuttal and repeating effectively a non seuqitor as it relates to bail indicates and lack of attempt to try and integrate said information into your approach or reject it with analysis. Ergo it’s hard to out a lot of stock in your description as “strange”. Not to mention a fairly nascent history or involvement here to make such declarations. I’m trusting you aren’t another degenerate feeble person, like a Peter Brown here pregiosuly who was laughable as a human being and actually new to engagement with these threads. Don’t always come to such conclusions so quickly?