Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if there is a god, that god is the only one who could be positive beyond a doubt......and, therefore, perhaps it should be up to that god to take that person's life. Otherwise, life without parole ever is the best imperfect humans can do to ensure that no innocents are executed.
in this case I don't think there was even a chance that this man would have been arrested.
Something like this and you still don't believe in capitol punishment?? I just can't understand...
He has been released several times, always to turn around and commit worse crimes. Remember when I mentioned to you, not long ago people do get out and repeat. Yes, he never murdered before as far as we know, but his release alone shows anyone can get out. Even the sentences that say "without parole" can be commuted. We never know. In this case, it didn't take God to know he killed 4 innocent people, people who were protecting us from harm or trying to protect us..
Recently four police officers of the state of Washington were gunned down in a coffee shop, by a person who apparently entered the shop for the purpose of deliberately targeting those officers. Since this is a politics-discussion forum, I guess we should ask a political question related to this tragedy, since some people will (as usual) start insisting we need more gun restrictions to keep this from happening.
The 2nd amendment says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted. Though it is frequently ignored by lawmakers who want to curtail gun rights, it is nonetheless still on the books, and stands in the way of anyone wanting to create new government regulations against citizens owning or carrying guns.
Clearly, since criminals will find ways to get guns despite all laws, the only way gun restrictions will keep guns from falling into criminal hands, is if they eliminate ALL guns from every member of society, criminal and law-abiding alike. People who want to make more restrictions against ordinary people owning guns, must hav this as their ultimate objective, or else there will still be guns available for criminals to acquire by theft, fraud etc., and the goal of disarming criminals will never be achieved as long as such guns are there to steal.
There is clearly a need to protect officers of the law from the murderous intention of the occasional madman. Does that need justify the deliberate disarming of the entire populace and leaving them at the mercy of those same murderous madmen (plus all the ordinary muggers, rapists, and petty criminals)?
Should the 2nd amendment be repealed and something put in its place saying something like:
"Government recognizes no inherent right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Government will have the power to regulate, restrict, or ban the ownership of guns and other such weapons by some or all ordinary citizens."?
Doesn't make one darn bit of difference, anyone, especially a criminal that wants to get a gun will always be able to.. He shouldn't have had one..
I was hoping he got shot, so good. As someone who works in Lakewood, WA, this community is devastated. I only wish the cop who shot the Ft Hood terrorist had better aim and left him the same fate: dead.
Recently four police officers of the state of Washington were gunned down in a coffee shop, by a person who apparently entered the shop for the purpose of deliberately targeting those officers. Since this is a politics-discussion forum, I guess we should ask a political question related to this tragedy, since some people will (as usual) start insisting we need more gun restrictions to keep this from happening.
The 2nd amendment says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted. Though it is frequently ignored by lawmakers who want to curtail gun rights, it is nonetheless still on the books, and stands in the way of anyone wanting to create new government regulations against citizens owning or carrying guns.
Clearly, since criminals will find ways to get guns despite all laws, the only way gun restrictions will keep guns from falling into criminal hands, is if they eliminate ALL guns from every member of society, criminal and law-abiding alike. People who want to make more restrictions against ordinary people owning guns, must hav this as their ultimate objective, or else there will still be guns available for criminals to acquire by theft, fraud etc., and the goal of disarming criminals will never be achieved as long as such guns are there to steal.
There is clearly a need to protect officers of the law from the murderous intention of the occasional madman. Does that need justify the deliberate disarming of the entire populace and leaving them at the mercy of those same murderous madmen (plus all the ordinary muggers, rapists, and petty criminals)?
Should the 2nd amendment be repealed and something put in its place saying something like:
"Government recognizes no inherent right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Government will have the power to regulate, restrict, or ban the ownership of guns and other such weapons by some or all ordinary citizens."?
Nope, don't see that happening, nor do I see it working. Refer back to the sentence I highlighted. First, I do not think it is at all possible to remove all guns from society in this country. Many would simply hide their guns and gun ownership. Secondly, since criminals don't follow the law anyway, even IF we managed to eliminate all guns in the US, how long do you think it would take before the criminal element had set up numerous smuggling operations to bring guns in from other countries? All you would accomplish with this is to make guns much more expensive, make the smugglers wealthy and make otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. Remember Prohibition? Awful lot of rich families became rich by smuggling alcohol.
and what would you have had them do, baby sit him??? I hope you are not serious..Of course he was hunted down, he killed 4 innocent police officers.
Nita
Don't be so loose with the word "innocent".
Sounds to me like he knew them, and they knew him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
