Capital punishment: why is it not morally and politically acceptable?

You're clearly addressing issues that you don't understand. The SCOTUS decisions had nothing to do with whether guns were needed or not or whether "more guns = fewer killings". Furthermore, your assertion that the 2nd Amendment only applied to "militias" is false which has already been pointed out several times in this thread, but don't let facts get in the way of your fear of inanimate objects or your emotion based arguments.

 

The SCOTUS decisions spuriously extended the right to private persons to own guns for personal reasons.

These were decisions that were necessary to:

1. Please the NRA gun lobby;
2. Fortify housewives from attacks by other, mainly black, housewives.

They recognised your society is in a mess so extreme that it requires you to have the legal ability to shoot one another.

It was a neat way to perpetuate a 2nd Amendment whose original purpose expired donkeys ago.

How hard is that to understand?

 

I did not say that. I said the "well regulated militia" clause in the Second Amendment is a rhetorical device that is intended to remind the citizenry of their duty to protect liberty. It is not meant as some kind of precondition to the exercise of that right.

 

<<<mod edit>>> insult

The right to keep and bear arms is one that predates the Constitution and transcends mundane legalese. The SCOTUS simply recognized this obvious fact, which is in accordance with the historical record and basic legal construction. The Bill of RIGHTS is an enumeration of RIGHTS, ergo the Second Amendment protects a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, just like it says in the language of the Amendment. You have been brainwashed by liars to believe that the Second Amendment is something that it is clearly not and you are irrationally clinging to that false notion because you're terrified of admitting any fault. That is the conceit of the statist and the leftist, one they will never relinquish...

 

So it was just meant to be a hopeful injunction to the American populace like the Boy Scouts motto "Be prepared".

But I am curious. Don't you think the injunction has passed its use-by date? You have enough armaments to destroy anyone who might want to attack you several times over. Except those possibly, like Al Qaeda, who don't observe your rules of war you think they should play by.

 

<<<mod edit>>> flaming

The right to bears arms nonsense is just a construct that suits armaments manufacturers and Americans who are terrified of one another. Delving into history and rewriting it just helps to give credibility to the propaganda that Americans are somehow defending themselves from unimaginable horrors.

The simple fact is that you need guns, not to resist any external enemy, but to manage your survival in a society made violent by...er...guns.

 

Good, there may have been some doubt as to whether or not you knew what you were talking about. You have succeeded in removing all doubt with your ridiculously inaccurate summary above. The SCOTUS merely incorporated the 2nd Amendment so that it is binding against state governments as well as the federal government, just as they have done for the other rights protected in the Bill of Rights.

It is particularly laughable that you assert that the SCOTUS's decision was predicated on a supposed need for housewives to protect themselves from black housewives when Mr. McDonald, the man who filed the suit, is a black man. Furthermore, nearly every major gun control measure in this country has actually been aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of black people, particularly poor black people. In fact, the 14th Amendment, on which incorporation is based, was in response to the "Black Codes" that, among other things restricted black people from owning firearms.

 

For goodness sake, how hard is it for you to say anything that is not shrouded in deeply mysterious twaddle.

The SCOTUS bent the 2nd Amendment to sanctify the ownership of guns by Yanks terrified because they feel under attack by blacks who are armed to the teeth.

When you go out on the street, there is no point in taking a tract detailing what your special advocate thinks is the history of gun ownership in the US.

Take a gun. The SCOTUS says you need one. And I think I can see why.

 

Yes, of course you're right. The SCOTUS ruled that Otis McDonald, a black person, had a right to own a weapon because people are terrified and feel like they are under attack by black people. Who could possibly argue with such a well reasoned and logical argument?

 

Yeah, you knocked us out with your unassailable logic that the SCOTUS ruled that a black man has the right to own a firearm because people are in danger from black people. Really in depth stuff...

 

1. The colonies were mostly English & Germanic, so a revolution was yet another bloody war against brothers as Europe had been long doing.
Nothing subjective here.


2. Americans could have sacrificed for peace instead of the great sacrifices they made for war.
This is probably difficult to comprehend or understand for one who takes the war crazy UN as his motiff.

3. After the Revolution when the Shay Regulators regulated their public servants in Massachusetts, the rich "patriots" in the other states raised an army to invade Massachusetts and kill the American Men asserting their American Rights, so the Revolution was just a scam by certain people who coveted what the English King had.
This is historical fact, but is usually related as a sort of rebellion, when it was the public servants who revolted and won.

4. Taxes and bureaucratic hassles increased after the Revolution.
Another historical fact. The Shay episode and the Appalacian whiskey farmers will testify to the rip off system go worse after the Revolution. It got so bad that the Southern States finally got fed up with the scam and left. Lincoln and Marx fixed that, and the scams and taxes just keep on growing. Where's all that freedom stuff? Yeah, the freedom of bullycrats to rip of the peasants.

5. Revolutionaries attacked and pillaged people loyal to the king.
Another historical fact that is usually treated as a virtue.

6. The Revolution was a setup all along. The organizers poisoned the King so that he would not oppose the stupid things done to prod the Americans into reactionary resistance and resentment.
There is a movie about the poisoning of the King. The Americans were reactionaries and thus reacted themselves right into a war.


7. The Treaty of Paris that ended the war required that the Americans pay all their debts to the King of England...... some freedom.
Another historical fact. I read the Treaty, you can too.

8. The people who fostered the Revolution promised the King & his successors to get back America, but in the process the kingdom was usurped from behind the scenes resulting in much trouble and misery ever since.
Check out the real history of the East India Company. Follow the money and you'll find the whole story, if you play detective..

9. And, the real ideal behind many earnest people of the time was to make America into the Israel that was before they chose Samuel as a king.......an America where the American Man was in charge, doing Truth, Mercy & Faith, and his house was his castle, but they did not accomplish that. Just look around. Any American can be arrested & killed by his "public servants" today.

The peoples of America & Europe are descendants of Biblical Israel. And the best reason for getting rid of King George was to turn America into the New Jerusalem where "nature's God" makes good men perfect in the Heaven of God's Kingdom in the Here and Now.
Yes, this may be difficult for some people too, especially those who love the current regime of never ending wars, ever increasing lies, taxes and stupid rules, and a system of Never Forget and Never Forgive.

 

I'd prefer the healthy ones be harvested for their organs. Finally giving back to the society they took so very much from.

 

If they are not NZ nationals, I'd have no problems in deporting them, there's a large amount of "making your own bed" here.

 

Please stay on topic.

Thanks
Shangrila
Site Moderator

 

Good questions, it's anyone's guess.

I support capital punishment for:

drug traffickers

all PROVABLE rapes with few exceptions

murder

human traffickers

And the vast majority of crimes I support harsher punishments than what's currently being dished out.

 

I like to add to that list.

All Michael Bay films.

And anyone defending the star wars prequels.

 

lol. Are you saying you agree?

 

I am usually against it. But after watching Transformers. I can't stand Bay.

A public execution would be fitting with the word (sorry) tatooed across his forehead.

 

I don't have a problem with capital punishment per se. Where I have a problem, as others have pointed out, is the process by which it is carried out As the numerous cases in which DNA has excupated the convicted, the jury system is not perfect, by far. The accused are often represented by public defenders, who, are generally not the most experienced or capable lawyers, and often overworked and underpaid. The result is that too often, an innocent person is convicted.

IMO, there should be an even higher standard of proof in death penalty cases, like proof beyond the exclusion of any possibility of innocence.

 

I can sign on to that. But really it's rarely used anyways. It needs to be a frequent practice.

 

The death penalty view is somewhat meaningless. When view other topics on this forum that describe the police dishing out justice (shooting dead suspects, for no real reason just to save time)

In this view, give more power to the police to dish out quick judgements. Like sly stallone in the film, Judge Dredd (but without the poor acting)

 

Police act right in areas where everyone carries.

 

You are too sloppy in your analysis her.

Ullegal, unregistered guns are wha tis killing people.

It is also why people with registered guns who are attacked by those with the unregistered guns need the right to also arm themselves.

get it???

Criminals get guns which we can not control.
The government can not prevent the criminals from finding ways to arm themselves.

Liberals miss the logic here: that since the government can prevent honest good citizens fro getting guns, they want to do whatthey can do, not what they should find ways to do.

What we need is liberal ideas which stop the criminals from getting guns.
It is counter productive and frankly, stupid, to stop peop-le from defending against the criminals who can not be stopped from obtaining guns.

 

No one needs guns.

But to be fair. I have had interesting chats on this forum with hunters of wild game. So i can support that and maybe the occasional target practise. Other than that, guns seem pointless. Just my view though.

Others on this forum view them like a fashion accessory.

 

Yes.
The purpose of Execution is to lower the murder rate by strict enforcement of such punishment.

This is not pecular to murder sentences, but can be shown to be the very essence of Law Enforcement.
What the plice do is focus on specific types of crimes they want to lower the frequecy for, hance the term, Crime Control.

The crimes do not go away, but the criminal element is always aware of what crimes wille strictly enforced, oppsed by enlarged police action on them, and a high risk of servere punishment if caught.

If prostitution is suddenly prevalent in a particular area, the police will enlarge their patrols and specifically focus on that activity.
The word spreads quickly, and the criminals leave the area, Johns and Whores.

If murder is treated the same way, the murder rate falls.