News Lily:
Run out of fresh things to read? Try Newsyndicated
|
News Lily:
Run out of fresh things to read? Try Newsyndicated
| |
| science | technology | opinion | other | worldnews | music | politics | humor | Us_News | The_Economy | pictures | psychology | geekery | lolwut | Culture | All Stories | |
| Sharing is Caring... |
|
|
Home |
About Us |
Register |
Submit Link |
Upcoming |
Top Stories |
Random |
Comment Roll |
Epic Comments |
Blog |
RSS
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 50 |
New Blog by luke
By luke on 2009-01-19 | 9 comments |
| 1 | Commander Cody | 2009-01-19 | |
|
Do you think that this notion that president can pardon people should be outdated?
Reply to this |
| 1 | luke | 2009-01-19 | |
|
The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson by Mark Twain would not have been near the story if it wasn't for pardons.
It all goods back to benevolent dictators. It would be great if someone how made all the right decisions had all the power to do it. Pardons should happen sometimes. Clinton pardon 300+ on his last day. I am guessing that a few of those deserved to sit in prison for awhile. I am also guess that a few of those didn't. Is it right? I don't know. The courts work more at order and safety than with justice. Reply to this |
| 1 | Ryan | 2009-01-19 | |
|
There is something that people seem to have lost sight of. Leaders sometimes have to make unpopular decisions. Sometimes, they have to piss off a whole bunch of people who are too stupid to understand that what is going on is for their own good.
Do I think that the President needs to the option of operating outside and above the law during crisis? Absolutely. I don't think that the people that he asks to help him operate should pay a penalty for it. Is that too much power? No. There is something magical about our government...it allows its citizens to have guns (so long as Barack the Obama doesn't have his way). If the government pisses off the citizens to much, the second amendment is a mechanism for allowing them to remove those in power. Reply to this |
| 1 | Travers | 2009-01-19 | |
|
Well,
what prevents them from expanding their power or seizing it completely if they have carte blanch? Neither do you have to sit around and wait for a so called crisis. False flag maneuvers have gotten us into a few conflicts over the years. Democrats don't like guns because it empowers the people, and the dems think the gov't should be responsible for everything. There goes individual liberty. Pretty un-American, if you ask me. Reply to this |
| 1 | luke | 2009-01-20 | |
|
Democrats don't like guns because they are used to kill people. Don't try to put bad movitives where there aren't any. (Or at least many)
Reply to this |
| 1 | Travers | 2009-01-20 | |
|
Accepting your argument, I think it's more concise to say that they don't like murder or intent thereof. Cars, hell even bicycle accidents, I'm sure, result in more deaths than gun crime. You don't see anybody trying to ban cars or bicycles though. Now who can say that they think murder and crime is good? Even criminals have that inkling. Most everyone agrees that death sucks too.
Is a gun sine qua non to killing people? Certainly not. You've got knives, bats, vehicles, etc. Even unarmed, people can kill. Hell, look what a couple of box cutters did on 9/11. If someone is going to go to the effort to kill someone else, the lack of a gun is not a show-stopper. So what does this boil down to? Stopping death? Stopping murder? No. Quite clearly, the gun in and of itself adds something to the picture. Perhaps because its only purpose is killing, be that food or people. (The aforementioned implements have other primary purposes.) While that is a gruesome fact, I doubt the removal of guns from the public and their psyche will result in any appreciable decline in murder. What I do believe it will result in, is the revocation of a person's right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property. While complete removal of guns would put everyone on a level playing field, say, knives for instance, that goal is impossible. Say a law is passed insofar citizens have to give up their guns. Well, good law abiding citizens will. Criminals will not. This results in a disproportionate balance of power. The cat is long out of the bag. Do you expect the police to guard you? This is big government. Abdicating personal responsibility in lieu of someone else. But now, who cares about you more than you? Who's going to be able to respond to a threat first? And while I hate to fear-monger, what happens when you can't protect your family from superior force because you've given up some of your rights? Could you live (assuming you're still living) with yourself after such an incident? Let me set up a scenario, sans guns, to argue another point. Lets say you're walking down the street, and get mugged by a bat wielding criminal. You're unarmed, and have the disadvantage. Someone sees the confrontation and calls the police. Well, as it turns out, the mugger beats the crap out of you, doing considerable harm, putting you in the hospital for quite some time. You receive physical wounds which you will never fully recover from, as well as psychological trauma. Can you sue the police? Are you entitled to compensation even though they arrived as soon as they could? No, my friend, you cannot. Why the hell not, you ask? Isn't it their job, which they failed to carry out? Well, at it is, they're not actually legally responsible for your well-being. There are some exceptions to this, but that's beside the point (if you're arrested, or are a dependent in their custody, like an insane person.) To conclude, the only person responsible for you and yours safety is yourself. Abdicating your personal responsibility to the government is inefficient, unAmerican, and personally, I find people who do it downright disgusting. The universal recall of guns is impossible; any attempts will only result in more power for criminals. I'm not even going to go into disproportionate citizen/government power. s/criminal/government/g Reply to this |
| 1 | Commander Cody | 2009-01-20 | |
|
I don't think many democrats want an all out ban on guns... There certainly are some who do but out of all the democrats who ran for president I think only Dennis wanted to ban hand guns everywhere. Most of the hype about banning guns is right wing propaganda.
Reply to this |
| 1 | Travers | 2009-01-20 | |
|
Better to err on the side of caution on this issue.
Reply to this |
| 1 | luke | 2009-01-22 | |
|
During his presidency, Bush has granted 189 pardons and 11 commutations. That's fewer than half as many as Presidents Bill Clinton with 457 or Ronald Reagan with 406 during their two-term tenures.
Reply to this |