88 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
ah yes, sounds like something someone else here approves
give them the weapons to kill themselves and leave them to it.
Send them all to hell on earth, and devil take the hindmost.
Why don't you just limit appeals on death sentences to one, and make more crimes capital?
Your answer is to kill them all off? well it would work.
You think everyone in a gang is equally as guilty? you think no one has ever been wrongly convicted?
Instead of better 10 guilty go free than one innocent go to jail you'd rather all be placed in a kill or be killed situation rather than one guilty go free.
In the past, I didn't realize you were a anticipating, nay looking forward to, apocalypse and I'll survive no matter what it takes and who I kill type.
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out
isn't my motto.....but if they are so into killing each other anyhow, why not give them the arena to do it?
if BO can arbitrarily drone Americans overseas based on a SUSPICION, why worry about an 'innocent' gang member here?
oh sometimes I'd like to kill them all
and be done with it.
But I know it's not the way.
Executing them outselves for belonging to a gang and doing a crime would be more honest than dumping them in a wilderness or impound with a gun and saying good luck.
What's the prize for surviving? getting killed by someone younger as you age?
as for justifying it because of something Obama does you disagree with, you adopting the policy well if they do it we should?
We all have those occasional fantasies
in moments of frustration. It's nothing to be ashamed of. We just need to be careful who's listening when we say them out loud. Whatever you say can and will be used against you.
... or post ...
Like in crime syndicates?
Isn't that already a federal responsibility? Maybe your idea is plausible. These gangs, in one way or another, engage in "interstate commerce" if connected to drug distribution networks. We really need to prioritize eliminating this activity before worrying about legally purchased guns falling into the wrong hands.
Charge them all with RICO rules........
When Obama visited Chicago...
When Obama visited Chicago, he thought what is needed is Gun Control. What was actually needed is "Gang Control".
Kidnapping has been a federal crime for ages
That isn't a recent change, Toni. The FBI was involved in the search for the Lindbergh baby.
Gangs are a complicated problem, Toni. A lot of kids end up in them because they're afraid to refuse, and those kids need help, not killin'.
Your "solution" sounds rather barbaric, frankly. This isn't "Escape from New York." That movie was supposed to be a warning about what we could descend into if we cease to be civilized. Apparently you got the wrong message from it.
And 'being civilized'
means giving gang members a free rein on society because you can't come up with a real solution to it? Come on, Josh.......if there was real help for 'those kids', it would have been dealt with long ago. Instead, you have police refusing to go into certain areas, especially at night, BECAUSE of the gangs running freely.
Funny how you see my suggestion as 'rather barbaric' but you have no solution to offer and don't call the gang killings barbaric but rather see a lot of kids ending up in gangs as TERRORIZED victims who need help. Get rid of the TERRORISTS by making gang membership a FEDERAL DOMESTIC TERROR group and freaking deal with it. Isn't Homeland Security supposed to protect the HOMELAND?
Do you also propose.....
....making the Mafia a domestic terror group? You didn't mention them in your original post.
Let's not weaken the definition of terrorism by broadening it too much. Terrorism is terrorism. Gang activity may fall under organized crime statutes but I don't see how it qualifies as terrorism. I'm pretty sure gang leaders have already been prosecuted under the RICO act. No, I do not have links.
Some of that "real help" would come in the form of federal funding for social assistance, education, etc., which your party routinely opposes so don't go hiding behind that as an excuse.
More federal funding for
self help crap (or in most cases, you can't help yourself, so other taxpayers will help you instead). You bet your sweet **** my party opposes it.
As for the Mafia......the Feds didn't go after the guns of law-abiding citizens, they went after the CRIMINALS.......and IF the Mafia had been as big a problem as the gangs are today, and IF terrorism was recognized back in those days as it is today, it SHOULD have been labeled a domestic terror group and been under the enforcement of the Federal Government as such.
RICO only seems interested in the gang leaders themselves, when every underling is also guilty of those same laws. Unfortunately most times, the prosecutors are more interested in getting the 'big guys' and plead out or make deals with the underlings in order to make a name for themselves politically. Arrest all under the same laws, prosecute under the same punishments for all, and you begin to tear down the entire empire.
So, in summation.....
......you recognize that gangs are a problem and that there are sociological reasons they exist, but you oppose investing anything in trying to solve those problems and prefer a more reactive approach that will likely cost more in the long run.
And there's no "IF" about the Mafia and the impact they've had. Maybe not so much where you are but in big cities, you betcha. They've had a longer-lasting more significant impact on other people's lives than any gang has or ever will. They entrenched themselves in construction, waste removal, food and beverage distribution, pretty much anything that a city needs to function, which drove up prices for all of those goods and services. Starting a business in New York and need your garbage picked up? Vinny will be right over to discuss terms.
And don't start blaming it on "liberals." The mob has been around since the turn of the 20th century.
Vinny and the boys aren't the same problem
If your car stalls at a traffic light, Vinny just might help you restart it... and he won't pull you out and drive away in it either. He won't grab your wallet, cell phone, GPS, etc., and run off with it while leaving you bleeding on the sidewalk.
I don't think it's proper to compare youth gangs who commit random violence to Mafia styled organized crime. Both are problems but with completely different MOs and/or reasons to fear. I'd agree that inner city gang activity has complex and difficult to address roots and there's no easy remedy. I do believe that strong measures to remove the incentive to go into crime as a career is an imperative component of whatever the overall plan should be. I'd love to think there was another way but secular law seems to only know how to threaten and dole out negative consequences. Those mechanisms are already in place but not effectively used.
Mafia started as a protection racket
which for the regular payments they provided. Someone do something in their area to one of the "protected" it was being done to them. They took care of business. No more gang.
RE: but secular law seems to only know how to
but secular law seems to only know how to threaten and dole out negative consequences.
And religious law?
Just wait till you die...you're going to get it, you'll be in big trouble then?
Romans chapter 13
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Will you then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and you shall have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that does evil. Why you must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay you tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually on this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
JUST WAIT TIL YOUR FATHER GETS HOME!!!
You didn't get my drift
which was in the opening phrase of that very sentence you keyed on.
in the other thread
he couldn't even read what was plainly in the OP. Maybe he had a bad night?
RE: plainly in the OP. Maybe he had a bad night?
Perhaps YOU'RE having a worse day?
feminist-baiting ........Backlash Against Feminism
You do realize "baiting" and "backlash" are 2 entirely different things don't you?
to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks
An antagonistic reaction to a trend, development, or event:
If that's where you wanted me to focus
You should have stopped typing after the opening phrase.
It was a reply to Josh but I'll try to remember
that, when responding to you, I need to break up sentences that contain more than one thought.
RE: It was a reply to Josh but I'll try to remember
You didn't get my drift
This claims it's a reply to a post make by me. Claiming "I" didn't get "your" drift.
Yes it was
The mention of secular law was in a response to Josh regarding "Vinny and the boys...". Your response title to me was
"RE: but secular law seems to only know how to"
to which you brought up the question of religious law. It was in response to that post that I said you didn't get my drift...that being in my response to Josh. I said nothing about religious law. Go back and check the sequence if you wish. Your title truncated the sentence in question. Go back and look at it if you feel it's worthwhile. I was discussing the removal of incentives to enter criminal life but lamenting that secular law had nothing to offer but negative ones. That was my "drift" and hope it susplains it better.
Some take that viewpoint
Jonathan Edwards seemed to have done so but there are positive incentives offered as well. It's not the 70+ virgins, however.
There are some similarities.....
......that could subject gang leaders to RICO laws, but overall I agree, they aren't the same thing in terms of how they operate. I used to work in a bar that was owned by "Sicilians" and what you say is true -- they don't engage in random violence, and they'll protect you to the hilt if you live or work near them. In fact mob neighborhoods are among the safest places to live.
Fact is though that the mob is a lot more destructive to society overall, if you look at their sphere of influence vs. that of an average street gang.
I think that being afraid to walk the streets
alone or in the dark in one's own neighborhood is about as destructive as it gets.
Very destructive, yes
It is very localized destruction though, and people who don't live in a gang neighborhood are very unlikely to be affected. The mob can hold an entire economy in its grip. Try to build something or operate a business in Manhattan without dealing with them. It's impossible. Why are so many things so expensive? Because the mob gets a piece of almost everything. You want groceries? You want them delivered by truck?
That's why Donald Trump is lying when he denies having dealt with them. There's simply no way.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)