TexasCHLforum.com

I sometimes wonder how I have a computer monitor left. I just about put my fist through it this morning

The headline is on the Drudge Report about ankle monitoring
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ke/?page=2
Not exactly gun related until you see, buried in the story

A 19-year-old man facing charges in connection with a March shooting that injured 13 people on North Capitol Street was at the time of the incident wearing a GPS device assigned by the District’s Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2nAieTqNA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

and.

An hour later, a witness placed Kevon Austin near the scene of a fatal shooting around Gallaudet University in Northeast, and prosecutors charged him with the homicide. Another witness described hearing Mr. Austin talk about killing the man in the days before the shooting, but prosecutors ultimately dropped the charges against him with no explanation.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2nAis12kj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Wait a minute. So let me get this straight. A couple of year ago, a Tennessee preacher mistakenly takes his LEGAL firearms into DC and they throw the book at him. He end up in jail. I couldn't find the original media reports but I'm pretty sure that he ended up with lifetime consequences for his incursion.

By contrast, a thug who is already on electronic monitoring ends up being charged with a gun homicide.... and the charges are dropped????

So how does it work with this?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... n-the-u-s/

Of course the answer is simple. Criminals, like the ones in Chicago, NY, NJ are not prosecuted for gun crimes. At best they are an add on to a sentence. In the mean time, every otherwise law abiding citizen, with no other blemish on their record, feels the full weight the gun laws. The thread about the Colorado man in NJ is typical. He is prosecuted and ends up in jail while absolute carnage goes on daily in Newark with little or no consequence to those involved, just like the examples in the DC Article.

Why can't we improve the accountability? Yes, I know that part of the answer is the media's unwillingness to bring any of these paradoxes to light. But is that our only solution - the media? This stuff just leaves me frothing at the mouth. The main reason for that was this, at the end of the article.

In their response, DYRS officials write that a standardized or a one-size-fits-all approach would not work because “treatment needs and progress play a significant factor in determining when GPS is needed and can be discounted.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2nAli9DKr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

So it is the treatment needs of the perps that allow them to be released, with a GPS device that is supposed to be monitored but isn't, back onto to society so that they can commit yet more crimes that they get away with?

Decent rant. I hope letting that out made you feel a little less tense?

Pretty messed up... I agree.

Solution? Anyone taking money/support from the government is ineligible to vote during and for 5 years after taking their last government payment. NOT talking about SS or Medicare recipients, or pensioners or other folks (me eventually) that have paid in to receive those benefits.

RoyGBiv wrote:Decent rant. I hope letting that out made you feel a little less tense?

Pretty messed up... I agree.

Solution? Anyone taking money/support from the government is ineligible to vote during and for 5 years after taking their last government payment. NOT talking about SS or Medicare recipients, or pensioners or other folks (me eventually) that have paid in to receive those benefits.

Only a little. Tension for me comes with the fact that just about everything that I believe in seems to be turned upside down. Religion is given no freedom while those who don't believe in religion run rampant. The full force of law is unleashed against otherwise law abiding citizens, often in circumstances that don't warrant it and creeps who flaunt the legal system are given a free pass. I really need to stop reading the news at all.

Those on the public dole who are not SS or Medicare are there because they support politicians so there is no way those people will be stripped of the their "rights." The most forceful group in any political setup is the tax collection, followed by the sycophants.. Politicians make sure that tribute is paid and loyal are serviced - the rest of the stuff is handled as they get around to it or it serves their purpose.

If it's any consolation at all, Elijah Cummings ( ) thinks Ted Cruz will be running for POTUS in '16.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12 ... -is-about/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree, on the surface it seems pretty messed up. Of course, the DA's could just be stonewalling the media as it's pretty clear that the government messed up badly here. Why throw more fuel on the fire?

Can you imagine a corrections / probation system that is understaffed and can't properly respond to offenses due to staffing levels? I think that's pretty likely... Can you imagine a set of taxpayers that don't want to give more money to corrections and probation supervision? I know I can because I'm one of them.

RoyGBiv wrote: Solution? Anyone taking money/support from the government is ineligible to vote during and for 5 years after taking their last government payment. NOT talking about SS or Medicare recipients, or pensioners or other folks (me eventually) that have paid in to receive those benefits.

I appreciate solutions - and a good discussion about them. Your solution would effectively remove the working and non-working poor from the voting pool. Of course, the poor are already effectively opting out of the voting pool by choice (non-partisipation) anyway, so maybe it won't mess things up that much.

What about me? What if I allowed the government to subsidize my solar water heater (I did)? What about my clients who I installed solar power systems for? Is that taking money from the government?

Perhaps you're only taking about those who effectively take more from the government than what they've paid in? And I think you're talking about cumulatively - not yearly - as you're excluding pensioners? That is, tax rebates or subsidization is OK, as long as you're paying in more tax than you're getting out?

What if your medicare costs exceed what you put in? Same question about social security - what if you get out more than you paid in? Or that's OK because you paid *something* in? And now it's OK to be a net negative drag? Perhaps we should consider the value of paid in dollars 20 years ago against what the value is today?

I ask most of this in jest, but it's really hard to come up with defined parameters around a solution like that without leaving someone in a donut hole.

cb1000rider wrote:I agree, on the surface it seems pretty messed up. Of course, the DA's could just be stonewalling the media as it's pretty clear that the government messed up badly here. Why throw more fuel on the fire?

Can you imagine a corrections / probation system that is understaffed and can't properly respond to offenses due to staffing levels? I think that's pretty likely... Can you imagine a set of taxpayers that don't want to give more money to corrections and probation supervision? I know I can because I'm one of them.

RoyGBiv wrote: Solution? Anyone taking money/support from the government is ineligible to vote during and for 5 years after taking their last government payment. NOT talking about SS or Medicare recipients, or pensioners or other folks (me eventually) that have paid in to receive those benefits.

I appreciate solutions - and a good discussion about them. Your solution would effectively remove the working and non-working poor from the voting pool. Of course, the poor are already effectively opting out of the voting pool by choice (non-partisipation) anyway, so maybe it won't mess things up that much.

What about me? What if I allowed the government to subsidize my solar water heater (I did)? What about my clients who I installed solar power systems for? Is that taking money from the government?

Perhaps you're only taking about those who effectively take more from the government than what they've paid in? And I think you're talking about cumulatively - not yearly - as you're excluding pensioners? That is, tax rebates or subsidization is OK, as long as you're paying in more tax than you're getting out?

What if your medicare costs exceed what you put in? Same question about social security - what if you get out more than you paid in? Or that's OK because you paid *something* in? And now it's OK to be a net negative drag? Perhaps we should consider the value of paid in dollars 20 years ago against what the value is today?

I ask most of this in jest, but it's really hard to come up with defined parameters around a solution like that without leaving someone in a donut hole.

Let's not get this too far away from the central point - how do we impose accountability on those who are enforcing the gun laws for political purposes rather than to deal with crime as they were supposedly intended to do.

I'm not one who sees jail time as a solution to all problems. And I'd agree that a disproportionate amount of the prison population is given to minorities. But I'm tired of fighting the pols at seemingly every turn over more gun controls only to see the very people who are committing gun crimes almost unfazed by those laws. There was a rant by a woman in Newark that went viral on You Tube about all of the shootings and how it almost impossible to get LE there. Even the cops don't want to go into the high crime areas. But the statistics from those killings are used as a lever for more gun controls. When and how do we call this cycle for the bovine output that it is?

The next Sandy Hook is days/weeks/months away. If we don't start challenging some of the stuff that is going on an effective way, the next wave of gun control demands is going to follow it quickly. So how DO we break the cycle before we are on the defensive again?

cb1000rider wrote:I agree, on the surface it seems pretty messed up. Of course, the DA's could just be stonewalling the media as it's pretty clear that the government messed up badly here. Why throw more fuel on the fire?

Can you imagine a corrections / probation system that is understaffed and can't properly respond to offenses due to staffing levels? I think that's pretty likely... Can you imagine a set of taxpayers that don't want to give more money to corrections and probation supervision? I know I can because I'm one of them.

RoyGBiv wrote: Solution? Anyone taking money/support from the government is ineligible to vote during and for 5 years after taking their last government payment. NOT talking about SS or Medicare recipients, or pensioners or other folks (me eventually) that have paid in to receive those benefits.

I appreciate solutions - and a good discussion about them. Your solution would effectively remove the working and non-working poor from the voting pool. Of course, the poor are already effectively opting out of the voting pool by choice (non-partisipation) anyway, so maybe it won't mess things up that much.

What about me? What if I allowed the government to subsidize my solar water heater (I did)? What about my clients who I installed solar power systems for? Is that taking money from the government?

Perhaps you're only taking about those who effectively take more from the government than what they've paid in? And I think you're talking about cumulatively - not yearly - as you're excluding pensioners? That is, tax rebates or subsidization is OK, as long as you're paying in more tax than you're getting out?

What if your medicare costs exceed what you put in? Same question about social security - what if you get out more than you paid in? Or that's OK because you paid *something* in? And now it's OK to be a net negative drag? Perhaps we should consider the value of paid in dollars 20 years ago against what the value is today?

I ask most of this in jest, but it's really hard to come up with defined parameters around a solution like that without leaving someone in a donut hole.

I don't see how having a financial requirement of any kind for voting is different from the "Poll Tax" that was abolished by Constitutional amendment. Seems kind of a Jim Crowish solution.

Sorry OP.. I didn't intend for my "solution" (speaking very broadly and hypothetically) to derail the thread..
Please ignore and carry on on topic.


It's a crazy country.. and getting crazier...

Benjamin Franklin saw it coming...

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
Benjamin Franklin. Speech to the Constitutional Convention (September 17, 1787)

chasfm11 wrote:
just about everything that I believe in seems to be turned upside down

Me too.

Don't worry, the shift is by design. Brought to you by the Social Justice Industrial Complex. Nothing to see here, move along. These are not the 'droids you are looking for., etc...

chasfm11 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Decent rant. I hope letting that out made you feel a little less tense?

Pretty messed up... I agree.

Solution? Anyone taking money/support from the government is ineligible to vote during and for 5 years after taking their last government payment. NOT talking about SS or Medicare recipients, or pensioners or other folks (me eventually) that have paid in to receive those benefits.

Only a little. Tension for me comes with the fact that just about everything that I believe in seems to be turned upside down. Religion is given no freedom while those who don't believe in religion run rampant. The full force of law is unleashed against otherwise law abiding citizens, often in circumstances that don't warrant it and creeps who flaunt the legal system are given a free pass. I really need to stop reading the news at all.

Those on the public dole who are not SS or Medicare are there because they support politicians so there is no way those people will be stripped of the their "rights." The most forceful group in any political setup is the tax collection, followed by the sycophants.. Politicians make sure that tribute is paid and loyal are serviced - the rest of the stuff is handled as they get around to it or it serves their purpose.

It's way way worse than what you've written. These prosecutions and the laws behind them are a deliberate and intentional attack on lawful gun ownership. So it doesn't get lost in this post, I'm going to post a list of crimes in New York that are punished less severely than having a standard capacity magazine.

chasfm11 wrote: Let's not get this too far away from the central point - how do we impose accountability on those who are enforcing the gun laws for political purposes rather than to deal with crime as they were supposedly intended to do.

I think we start by becoming an educated public, but as our founding fathers made this a Republic, it maybe too much to ask.
Look, politicians by nature play the issue strings. It's not just gun laws. It's gun laws when you're speaking to a group of people that are associated with the NRA or a group or parents from Columbine. For others, it's medicare or social security. For others it's income taxes, property taxes, business taxes... It's whatever floats the boat of that particular constituency. It's not like most politicians actually have strong lines of support for this stuff - it's that they can feign support and fool most of the public.

And the public needs to get it that there is no free lunch. You can't have your pet program at no cost. In fact, we've all got to man up and recognize that we've already overspent. No one wants to talk about austerity, because we're not "that bad" yet - and many still believe that we economically grow our way out of this without any personal consequences.

We start compromising. Without compromise you end up with what we have in congress.


Push politicians for decisions made on actual data. Not politically spun data. Independent (if possible) analysis and data. If the data turns out to be wrong, you expire the decision. New spending goes on the books with a finite limit at which time it has to be re-debated. Same thing with new taxes.

cb1000rider wrote:

chasfm11 wrote: Let's not get this too far away from the central point - how do we impose accountability on those who are enforcing the gun laws for political purposes rather than to deal with crime as they were supposedly intended to do.

I think we start by becoming an educated public, but as our founding fathers made this a Republic, it maybe too much to ask.
Look, politicians by nature play the issue strings. It's not just gun laws. It's gun laws when you're speaking to a group of people that are associated with the NRA or a group or parents from Columbine. For others, it's medicare or social security. For others it's income taxes, property taxes, business taxes... It's whatever floats the boat of that particular constituency. It's not like most politicians actually have strong lines of support for this stuff - it's that they can feign support and fool most of the public.

And the public needs to get it that there is no free lunch. You can't have your pet program at no cost. In fact, we've all got to man up and recognize that we've already overspent. No one wants to talk about austerity, because we're not "that bad" yet - and many still believe that we economically grow our way out of this without any personal consequences.

We start compromising. Without compromise you end up with what we have in congress.


Push politicians for decisions made on actual data. Not politically spun data. Independent (if possible) analysis and data. If the data turns out to be wrong, you expire the decision. New spending goes on the books with a finite limit at which time it has to be re-debated. Same thing with new taxes.

I have a different view. I believe that it was compromise that brought us to where we are today. I do NOT want to try to eat the whole entitlement enchilada here so let's not follow the government payment/no vote path.

In my view, there is and never has been a compromise by the gun control faction. When they don't get everything they want this time, that is not a compromise because they are back proposing the rest of the package at the next event. They've lost with things like the assault weapons ban termination but were back with it in spades following Sandy Hook. They never compromise. They never go away. But that really wasn't the focus of why I posted this situation.

At issue here is not the politicians themselves but about how they've manipulated to legal justice system. Before someone tries to take me to task for this, I believe that our system is the best in the world. But that does not mean that it is perfect and that some of the flaws don't need to be addressed. The part that I cannot reconcile is how some of the most egregious acts are pardoned while others get the full force of the law. The recent news of the 10 year probation for an underage driver who was 3 times the legal alcohol limit, driving at twice the posted rate of speed and killed 4 people is one such situation. Again, before someone jumps on me, that is a real crime where real people died. Contrast that to were kids are punished for using imaginary guns or eating a cookie to look like a gun. Zero tolerance is the answer...except when it isn't. Interestingly, the zero tolerance situations always seem to be leveled at otherwise good kids who are not trouble makers AND WHERE NO HARM IS DONE TO ANYONE. Yes, I'd admit that I'm over generalizing but I'm trying to make a point. That point is that victimless crimes cannot weigh more than crimes that have real consequences.

In the story, a BG already on GPS monitoring commits a homicide while on that monitoring. Magically, the DA cannot find enough evidence to charge him. Yet in a story a couple of years ago, a soldier who has "illegal" magazines in the same area is prosecuted. Where was the probation option there?

At the core of this is selective enforcement. I recently got into a big debate on Facebook when I called our town a "speed trap". The posting war started. But my opponents hung themselves when they supported their claims of enforcement for "safety reasons" and we got into a discussion about what the biggest causes of crashes were in the high enforcement areas. Those crashes were not caused by speeding but by tailgaiting, red light running, etc. I asked for the statistics of the enforcement of those infractions and the thread when dead. For me, it is all shades of the same thing. Speeding is enforced, not for safety as claimed, but for revenue. Gun control is enforced not for safety as claimed but for oppression of those who might pose a danger to the "State". When to we call them on it and how? I'm no longer willing to compromise on allowing these practices to continue unchallenged.

I do realize that the DA position is elected in most areas and that, as a result, it will always have a political component. But to allow a DA to skate when a monitored BG murders someone while on that monitoring and doesn't get charged for that murder WITH A GUN is just over the top. I cannot go to DC with my otherwise legal handgun but this BG can murder with his and get away with it????? Nope. Not tolerable.

Educating the public may be part of the answer but we do have media poised against us on that. I submit that a good part of the public IS educated that allowing gun murderers to get off is not a good thing. I'm encouraged when stories about the 5 year old kissing the girl and getting charged for sexual harassment go viral and cause a lot of push back (he was guilty of repeated and unwanted contact but that his hardly sexual harassment) It means that a lot of people are paying attention. For me, what is missing is a way to get them to pay that same attention to these disparities in gun enforcement.