Quote:
|
Apparently her brand of gun control is for "the little people" and the "unwashed masses"
|
It could be. Or it could be even simpler, without the ulterior motive...
She and her family already have what they see as sufficient. (leaving aside the govt paid protection when she was in office). Perhaps, not being firearms enthusiasts, she simply cannot comprehend of a different kind of life, one where guns play a significant role as a hobby, or a vocation, over and above their ability for protection.
There are a great many "gun owners" to whom the guns are a small, and sometimes insignificant part of their lives. The occasional hunter. The owner who has a gun, "just in case" and doesn't do anything else with it, ever. These gun owners don't realize that they have a dog in this fight as well.
Their needs are met, what's the problem? Nobody's going to come and take that old shotgun, or that licensed pistol, those aren't the guns out on the street and in the schools doing all the killing!
That's their mindset, or so it seems to me. They think that they are being reasonable, and their lives will in no way be damaged by assault weappon bans and magazine restrictions.
Quote:
Apparently her brand of gun control is for "the little people" and the "unwashed masses"
Hey, here's an idea. Let's take all the nut cakes who are doing these mass shootings and try them for capital murder!
Not one has been so charged yet!
|
You mean the ones who DON"T kill themselves? They're being worked through the system. Just because it takes more than half a year to determine if one of them is even competent to stand trial doesn't mean no one is trying to see justice done.
Personally, I think that while exhausting every possible means of legal defense is a good thing in any case where there is even a shadow of doubt (because while being lengthy, costly, and irritating, it does work in our favor should one be falsely accused).
However, I am of a completely different opinion in cases where there is, and can be no doubt. When these nuts are caught red handed, taken IN THE ACT, how can any rational person have any doubt of their guilt?
I don't care why they did it. I don't care how they did it. I don't even care if they didn't understand how wrong it was to do it. If they were competent enough to load a gun, take it somewhere, and shoot a number of people because they wanted to, then they are compentent enought to die for that crime. Not in 17 years, not in 5 years, next week would be fine with me. But I will settle for on the one year anniversary, provided there is no press coverage until the actual execution.
A pipe dream, I suppose, but think about it for a moment. We think we are the greatest nation on earth, and in many ways we are. SO why cannot we convict and execute the sentence of someone caught in the act, in a timely manner? What else needs to be proven? What else could possibly be proven? And why would anything else even have any effect on the judgement?
Someone who guns down a dozen+ people (and the actual number is irrevant) and is ONLY stopped when shot down by the police, (or someone else) is hardly an issue in doubt. I know its not how the system works today, but I think it's how it should work. Either they did it, or they didn't. Establish that, beyond reasonable doubt, and forget the rest.
Claiming self defense is an admission of having done the act, that issue is settled. Then the mental state, and reasons are judged, to see if the law has been broken. THat's the only time when the mental state of the person pulling the trigger needs, or ought to be important to the case.