41 replies [Last post]
Joined: 01/06/2004
Posts: 10
Second Amendment

I invite all to take a look at my new Second Amendment page.

Thank you and God Bless,

Wayland Smalley
http://www.waylandsmalley.com

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Second Amendment

Excellent views you have there Mr. Smalley.
I dont think there is much more to add to Paul Harveys' comments on gun control.
Toby Kieth and Willie Nelson gave some good advice in their latest song, " its time the long arm of the Law put a few more in the ground".
I whole heartedly believe that we, as a nation, need to strictly enforce the Death Penalty and keep the guarantee of a swift and speedy trial active thru the penalty phase also.
The current penalties are a joke and certainly not a deterrant to using a fire arm to commit a crime. Florida has no parole anymore but it still takes too long to kill these killers. Nobody should be on Death Row any longer than 1 year.
Perhaps when you are elected and get the chance to mingle and learn the ins and outs of politics you might think to ask some of the politicians alrteady there, in private and off the record of course, how is it that they just dont get it? Do they actually hear what the people that elected them are telling them? Do they care?

Joined: 01/06/2004
Posts: 10
Second Amendment

Some have said that the criminal justice system is a big business and if it was more efficient there would not be as much profit. As a citizen I would have to say that a clear thinking person could come to that conclusion. It will be interesting to hear what the elected folks have to say.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Second Amendment

I'll bite on capital punishment. I think people that have killed deserve to be killed, but I don't support the death penalty. Paradox?

Not really. The criminal justice system makes mistakes. Want proof? How about 17 reasons?

Think about that for a second. 17 people the system was going to execute for crimes they did not commit.

No matter how bad I want to see true criminals get what they deserve, I cannot and never will support a system that occasionally kills the innocent. The fact is that no matter how hard we try, as humans we cannot make all decisions perfectly. We are not divine.

Offline
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: 10/28/2003
Posts: 1647
Second Amendment

I hear that! I agree with you on this bitmasher. How about chain gangs? How about making the prisons a place that societies crimals DONT want to go? Think about it. It might be jail but, for a large percentage of life long criminals its a better place than thier alternative/ the streets.

Joined: 01/06/2004
Posts: 10
Second Amendment

Crime and punshiment . . . It really is a tough one. Yes prison should be no frills. On the death penalty, no paradox. "it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man" (something like that). Once the needle is in it can't be taken out.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Second Amendment

I hear you hunter777, cases like this would lead me to believe that some people don't see jail as being hard enough to deter crime.

He also told the paper that prison food was better than what was served at some nursing homes.

My knowledge of prison life is limited to hollywood and fiction, neither of which, I'm sorry to say, is a good indicator of reality. However it is my general understanding that while in prison, you watch tv, exercise, maybe (if your so motiviated) take some classes, and possibly some minor work detail. Guards, facilities, classes, clothes, and meals footed by uncle sam.

Chain gangs is a loaded word. It would never fly in this day and age, however I think prisons need to pay their way. There is just something not right with the idea that taxpayers must pay more for people that have wronged society. Here in CO convicts routinely do road clean up duty, I think that is good. Criminal or not, people need to earn their keep.

Wayland, if you want to mine a furtile topic, beef up your medical care platform. There is something wrong with a country that 40 million people are uninsured and an appendectomy away from bankruptcy. It is a large and elaborate problem with no easy targets (candidates that lay blame exclusively on just doctors, or lawyers, or insurance companies simply don't get it and are just posturing for their particular special interest). Tort reform is a start, but the issue demands more innovation. How can we consider the U.S. of A. a civilized country when 20% of citizens cannot even afford basic medical care? That's pathetic.

[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2004-01-28 23:02 ]

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Second Amendment

IMO, the surest way to make the cost of medical care skyrocket would be to socialize medicine. I'm convinced one of the main reasons medical care is so expensive is that insurance company pockets are so easily mined. Anybody that's ever damaged a windshield and had the shop ask, "are you paying for this or is it insurance?" knows what I mean.

But my opposition goes deeper than that, since I rely on government-provided health care. If you have a problem and go to a normal hospital, they'll run a battery of tests to try to determine what's going on. After all, each test is business for the hospital and therefore represents profit. However, in a government-driven system, tests represent operating costs that must be contained. So it's far more likely that they'll do the bare minimum until you make enough of a stink that they can't put you off anymore.

I'm not a politician, but that's my two cents. Rather than put more money out there for the hospitals to reap, I'd rather see them go after the reasons why care is so expensive -- i.e. tort reform, etc.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Second Amendment

No paradox there bitmasher. Kill the killers and mabe child molesters but be absolutely certain first. With todays DNA test that should not be much of a problem. If there is no DNA evidence or other positive evidence, ie; video tape, then the proper punishment should be life without the possibility of parole.

All punishments should be sure and swift. The way things are set up nowadays its all just a big old joke. Society today has gotten outta hand and things are reverting to the prehistoric days with roving bands running rampant doing whatever they please with out consequence. They are known as "street gangs" in America. No matter what town or city you are from there is an area of it that you "should not go there". This cannot continue and have a civilized society.

Healthcare...whew thats a toughie.
I cannot agree with a socialized medical care or insurance program. Why should those of us that try to maintain a healthy lifestyle be forced to pay for those whos lifestyles are not healthy? In a democratic society every man has the choice to do as they please as long as their actions dont infringe with the next guys choices.
Tort reform has got to be the first step in solving some of the problem. Forcing insurance companies to do better at self regulating themselves is another step. I read somewhere that when an insurance company paid thousands of dollars in Dr and hospital overcharges their reply was it cost more to try and find the overcharges than to just pay them. Thats nonsense to me.
Another step would be to do something about the rediculous cost of pharmacuticals. During a recent hospital stay by my Mom her medicine bill was 1/4 of her total cost of the stay, more that the actual room cost her.
But I have to concede that there is not much you can do with some rising cost as technology is expensive.
It will take a huge collective effort by all involved in the medical business, insurance industry, people and government to solve this issue.

Offline
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: 10/28/2003
Posts: 1647
Second Amendment

I can agree with most of what you have said but, I must comment on this:
"Why should those of us that try to maintain a healthy lifestyle be forced to pay for those whos lifestyles are not healthy?"
To me...you are discounting the fact that some people are born with disease and others are effected by there environment and other reasons. Also there are many senior citizens that have worked all there life AND done everything they can to live a healthy lifestyle. When they get old, they are probobly on a fixed income and can't afford the best health care/technology that is available. What do we do? Should we just say...Oh Well he/she lived a long life already and he will probobly die soon enough.....lets not take care of him. I hope thats not what you were trying to say! How and where do you draw the line?
Sorry, didn't mean to go off topic.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Second Amendment

The question "why should I bear the cost of someone else's choices?" is a slippery slope. The social cost argument has been used to justify any number of limitations of personal choices (for example, helmet laws). It's a big argument behind the gun control crusade as well. All I'm saying is that it's dangerous ground when groups in society say the distributed social cost to them is more important than individual liberty.

Alexis de Tocqueville warned about tyranny of the masses over 160 years ago.

[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2004-01-30 04:28 ]

Related Forum Threads You Might Like