San Bernardino

Jews would consider Christians the enemy for most of Islamic history, at least until 1945.

 

Both of these statements are patently false. Deciding not to proceed on a gun charge is not the same thing as ignoring it. There are often good reasons gun charges get dropped in negotiation. The two main ones are that many gun cases are incredibly weak, and in the good cases the gun charge often carries less time than the charge the defendant is pleading to. Whether you like it or not our courts are too underfunded for both the prosecution and defense to not rely on plea bargaining.

If a prosecutor can induce a guy to plead guilty to a charge that's going to carry say 5 to 10 years in prison by dropping one that is going to carry 18 months - most likely served concurrently - the prosecutor is going to take that deal any day of the week.

 

Say what, now?

 

My co-worker just usually swings by to talk NBA.

 

Can we lock this fucking thing up already? Christ. Just ban the Muslims and make sure they dont have knives. Because they could kill/wound 35 people within seconds if they do. Some of you folks are deranged. Or just don't have a functioning brain.

 

BDC and the Times no longer want to discuss the issue. It's time to act, and they know best how to act.

 

Are you really going to plead ignorance regarding anti-Semitism in Europe compared to Asia and North Africa from the 700s to at least the mid 1800s?

 

Sorry, but the idea that we shouldn't make laws because people will break them or will just arm themsleves with knives is flat-out fucking absurd.

 

You know, it's funny. When Trump talks about deporting illegal aliens, the media not only is offended by the idea, but they challenge him about the logistics/specifics.

They tell him it's not possible.

They want to know how he proposes to accomplish his goal: "Are you going to have a Deportation Force?" (Ignoring the fact that we already have a deportation force.)

So, here's what the Times says is necessary: it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

So, who's going to challenge them on how they propose to accomplish this?

How are they going to get people to give up the guns they already have? What federal force is going to be tasked with taking the guns away? What rules will they operate under? What steps will they take if a citizen refuses to give up their gun(s) to them?

The editorial is a joke, and the proof it's a joke, is that no one is asking how we're going to implement the Times plan.

 

That's not a law, it's a theory. And I'm not a scientist, but...

 

I'm assuming absolutely no one will challenge them on it. It will go completely unquestioned. Everyone will simply accept it.

 

No. I was questioning your grammar which was so mangled it made my head hurt trying to get the gist of your point.