2024 President Candidate Discussion

[Paul158]

21 minutes ago, BobDole said:

On cue the whole criminals don't care about laws statement. I am all for no laws because no matter the law a criminal will criminal so thus the laws are utterly useless.

I want sensible gun laws. I want prosecutors to nail the criminals when they are caught. I want safe communities. If you commit a crime and have a gun it should be a minimum of 20 years federal time.It doesn't matter if you shoot the gun or not. Do away with no cash bail.

[BobDole]

2 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I want sensible gun laws. I want prosecutors to nail the criminals when they are caught. I want safe communities. If you commit a crime and have a gun it should be a minimum of 20 years federal time.It doesn't matter if you shoot the gun or not. Do away with no cash bail.

Won't criminals break even sensible gun laws? Come on man! If we have no laws the criminals can't win!

[Paul158]

Just now, BobDole said:

Won't criminals break even sensible gun laws? Come on man! If we have no laws the criminals can't win!

You  are confusing me with someone else.I'm for sensible gun laws. Which means regular citizens who wants a gun for protection can have one . A law abiding citizens who likes to hunt can own a gun. Read my whole statement . Prosecutors and judges need to get a lot tougher on criminals that use guns it there criminal activity. 20 years federal time no parole.Life in prison if you kill someone or attempt to. Again I did not say No gun LAWS.  OK.

[BobDole]

37 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

You  are confusing me with someone else.I'm for sensible gun laws. Which means regular citizens who wants a gun for protection can have one . A law abiding citizens who likes to hunt can own a gun. Read my whole statement . Prosecutors and judges need to get a lot tougher on criminals that use guns it there criminal activity. 20 years federal time no parole.Life in prison if you kill someone or attempt to. Again I did not say No gun LAWS.  OK.

  

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

Do you think the criminals will abide by the law? 

This isn't you? Leading with the most predictable reply to gun regulation possible.

Insinuating that criminals will... do criminal things in response to changes in gun laws leads to many believing you want very loose gun restrictions if any at all.

[Paul158]

1 minute ago, BobDole said:

  

This isn't you? Leading with the most predictable reply to gun regulation possible.

Insinuating that criminals will... do criminal things in response to changes in gun laws leads to many believing you want very loose gun restrictions if any at all.

I fixed it in my next post to WKN.I should have said the new gun law. Well I believe in sensible gun laws. I believe in very strong laws for those who use guns when committing crimes. I don't even think you read my entire posts. Thats ok

[Wrestleknownothing]

11 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I fixed it in my next post to WKN.I should have said the new gun law. Well I believe in sensible gun laws. I believe in very strong laws for those who use guns when committing crimes. I don't even think you read my entire posts. Thats ok

How do you define sensible?

The Illinois law was summarized in the article I posted this way:

The law bans dozens of specific brands or types of rifles and handguns, .50-caliber guns, attachments and rapid-firing devices. No rifle is allowed to accommodate more than 10 rounds, with a 15-round limit for handguns.

But it carves out exceptions. Those who possessed semi-automatic guns before it became effective on Jan. 10 are allowed to keep them but must register them with the state police by Jan. 1, 2024. And seven categories of "trained professionals," such as police officers, active-duty military, corrections officials and qualified security guards, may carry them.

Is that sensible? Or is there some element you do not care for? I am genuinely curious because I see the term sensible gun laws, but I rarely see it defined.

[Ohio Elite]

13 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

How do you define sensible?

The Illinois law was summarized in the article I posted this way:

The law bans dozens of specific brands or types of rifles and handguns, .50-caliber guns, attachments and rapid-firing devices. No rifle is allowed to accommodate more than 10 rounds, with a 15-round limit for handguns.

But it carves out exceptions. Those who possessed semi-automatic guns before it became effective on Jan. 10 are allowed to keep them but must register them with the state police by Jan. 1, 2024. And seven categories of "trained professionals," such as police officers, active-duty military, corrections officials and qualified security guards, may carry them.

Is that sensible? Or is there some element you do not care for? I am genuinely curious because I see the term sensible gun laws, but I rarely see it defined.

I wonder why they want them to register the guns?

[Paul158]

3 minutes ago, Ohio Elite said:

I wonder why they want them to register the guns?

You  and I know why.

[Paul158]

1 minute ago, Paul158 said:

You  and I know why.

Guess how many criminals will register their guns by Jan. I 2024.

[Paul158]

19 minutes ago, Ohio Elite said:

I wonder why they want them to register the guns?

Data on Illinois. !363 gun related deaths. 40% were suicide ( very sad). 59% were Homicide. Of the homicides 785 deaths by pistol.  There were 14 deaths by rifle. I knew rifle was low but only 14.

[ionel]

8 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Data on Illinois. !363 gun related deaths. 40% were suicide ( very sad). 59% were Homicide. Of the homicides 785 deaths by pistol.  There were 14 deaths by rifle. I knew rifle was low but only 14.

Now how many of the 14 were by "assault rifle?"  

[Paul158]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

Now how many of the 14 were by "assault rifle?"  

That wasn't in the data I Found. Probably less than half. Thats why i use the term sensible gun laws. I really don't understand why that is so bad. Nearly every homicide in Illinois is committed with a hand gun. 98.3 % . Yes  98.3%.

[Ohio Elite]

26 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

That wasn't in the data I Found. Probably less than half. Thats why i use the term sensible gun laws. I really don't understand why that is so bad. Nearly every homicide in Illinois is committed with a hand gun. 98.3 % . Yes  98.3%.

And how many of those are out of Chicago?

[ionel]

25 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

That wasn't in the data I Found. Probably less than half. Thats why i use the term sensible gun laws. I really don't understand why that is so bad. Nearly every homicide in Illinois is committed with a hand gun. 98.3 % . Yes  98.3%.

Given its pretty difficult for a criminal to get ahold of an actual assult rifle and also very rare for a law abiding citizen, I'd expect the number is zero.  It may even be zero for semi-automatic vermin rifles.  

[Paul158]

38 minutes ago, ionel said:

Given its pretty difficult for a criminal to get ahold of an actual assult rifle and also very rare for a law abiding citizen, I'd expect the number is zero.  It may even be zero for semi-automatic vermin rifles.  

Its pretty simple. They are easy to get, relatively cheap and easy to conceal'

[Paul158]

41 minutes ago, Ohio Elite said:

And how many of those are out of Chicago?

Chicago had 60% of them. Chicago has extremely tough gun laws. But they don't enforce them.

[mspart]

How many of those handguns were lawfully obtained by the shooter?   How many of these guns would have been registered?

mspart

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

Chicago had 60% of them. Chicago has extremely tough gun laws. But they don't enforce them.

You are analyzing the numbers wrong.

Chicago or Chicagoland? 

Either way, there is a large percentage of the state's population in a small percentage of its land. Of course the percentage will be higher. As it is for every metropolitan area in every state.

As for handguns vs rifles, that isn't the right breakdown. Not all rifles are covered by the law and some handguns are covered.

Secondly, the types of guns covered by the law result in more deaths per instance. Removing one of them is like removing 3 or 4 guns not covered by the law.

[Paul158]

18 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You are analyzing the numbers wrong.

Chicago or Chicagoland? 

Either way, there is a large percentage of the state's population in a small percentage of its land. Of course the percentage will be higher. As it is for every metropolitan area in every state.

As for handguns vs rifles, that isn't the right breakdown. Not all rifles are covered by the law and some handguns are covered.

Secondly, the types of guns covered by the law result in more deaths per instance. Removing one of them is like removing 3 or 4 guns not covered by the law.

I think i got the data from Pew research. I just copied their data. I believe was 2021.

[Paul158]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

How many of those handguns were lawfully obtained by the shooter?   How many of these guns would have been registered?

mspart

that would be zero on the 1st question. That would be zero on the 2nd question.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

6 hours ago, BobDole said:

  

This isn't you? Leading with the most predictable reply to gun regulation possible.

Insinuating that criminals will... do criminal things in response to changes in gun laws leads to many believing you want very loose gun restrictions if any at all.

That's exactly right.

NONE of his posts contain any gun restrictions whatsoever. His posts are all about prosecutors and judges putting criminals away who use guns when committing crimes.

So - zero ounces of restriction, and many pounds of prosecution.

I guess. Let everyone freely shoot it out 24x7, then put the bad-guy shooters in prison. I guess that's someone's idea of a solution.

[WrestlingRasta]

Georgia indictment is a complete game changer, in my opinion.  A very large portion of the evidence in the indictment is either the documented writings and filings, and recorded voices, of those accused in the indictments, and in RICO all are accountable for each other's actions.  But here is why it is a game changer, much bigger than those in DC, NY, and FL...

*Out on bail:  I think it is very very likely he will be going to jail pending trial.  For a couple reasons: 1) in order to be released on bail in this GA RICO case he will have to prove that he will not try to influence or intimidate witnesses, or officers of the court.  He also has to prove he is not a flight risk, which, would be very hard for him to prove, but the judge wouldn't have to even go that far, because he has spent the last two weeks intimidating, influencing, and harassing officers, judges, and potential witnesses.  It's all there in his written word.  2) He has been going off consistently on the DC judge the last few days, which could get his DC bail revoked in of itself, but also has went off specifically on the Atlanta DA.  They will almost certainly bring up recent instances of his supporters threatening various officers involved in these cases when it comes to bail in GA.  

If he goes to jail pending trial, that's it.  He's in jail for the rest of his life (in my opinion).  I believe he will be convicted, and we will never have another Trump social media post, and his campaign will go to shit.  He will still have his MAGA constituents out there pushing more things telling MAGA followers how they are supposed to think, but slowly it will start to erode away as all of this evidence will start to flood the webs and airwaves, replacing the constant Trump watch on what's he going to say next.  The fever will break, and by the time we are in the heat of primary season, Republicans will finally be serious about another candidate.  I think for the first time I feel like November 2024 is not going to be Biden vs Trump.  Republicans will have a different candidate (here's to hoping Democrats do to).

The evidence in this indictment is as solid, if not more, than the other cases.  There's even a document from before the election, stating the plan to call victory early and start claiming fraud.  The filings and statements to state officials are part of record and going to be pretty hard to break.  And lastly, if convicted, no President would be able to pardon him.   

I seriously wonder if he makes it to trial.

 

Side note-- the way this indictment is laid out provides for a tremendous amount of irony.  Rudy, in taking down the mob back in the 80's, basically wrote the blue print for this RICO case.  And as such you are going to see a very similar scene as that of those mob trials.   A prosecution team of a handful of individuals on one side, and a large amount of defendants and lawyers together on the other side.   Difference is Rudy will be on the other end of this one.  

Edited August 15, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[Wrestleknownothing]

46 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Georgia indictment is a complete game changer, in my opinion.  A very large portion of the evidence in the indictment is either the documented writings and filings, and recorded voices, of those accused in the indictments, and in RICO all are accountable for each other's actions.  But here is why it is a game changer, much bigger than those in DC, NY, and FL...

*Out on bail:  I think it is very very likely he will be going to jail pending trial.  For a couple reasons: 1) in order to be released on bail in this GA RICO case he will have to prove that he will not try to influence or intimidate witnesses, or officers of the court.  He also has to prove he is not a flight risk, which, would be very hard for him to prove, but the judge wouldn't have to even go that far, because he has spent the last two weeks intimidating, influencing, and harassing officers, judges, and potential witnesses.  It's all there in his written word.  2) He has been going off consistently on the DC judge the last few days, which could get his DC bail revoked in of itself, but also has went off specifically on the Atlanta DA.  They will almost certainly bring up recent instances of his supporters threatening various officers involved in these cases when it comes to bail in GA.  

If he goes to jail pending trial, that's it.  He's in jail for the rest of his life (in my opinion).  I believe he will be convicted, and we will never have another Trump social media post, and his campaign will go to shit.  He will still have his MAGA constituents out there pushing more things telling MAGA followers how they are supposed to think, but slowly it will start to erode away as all of this evidence will start to flood the webs and airwaves, replacing the constant Trump watch on what's he going to say next.  The fever will break, and by the time we are in the heat of primary season, Republicans will finally be serious about another candidate.  I think for the first time I feel like November 2024 is not going to be Biden vs Trump.  Republicans will have a different candidate (here's to hoping Democrats do to).

The evidence in this indictment is as solid, if not more, than the other cases.  There's even a document from before the election, stating the plan to call victory early and start claiming fraud.  The filings and statements to state officials are part of record and going to be pretty hard to break.  And lastly, if convicted, no President would be able to pardon him.   

I seriously wonder if he makes it to trial.

 

Side note-- the way this indictment is laid out provides for a tremendous amount of irony.  Rudy, in taking down the mob back in the 80's, basically wrote the blue print for this RICO case.  And as such you are going to see a very similar scene as that of those mob trials.   A prosecution team of a handful of individuals on one side, and a large amount of defendants and lawyers together on the other side.   Difference is Rudy will be on the other end of this one.  

Your second paragraph seems like wishful thinking to me.

But I too was struck by the irony of Giuliani being on the other side of a RICO case given his prior history. However, I also applaud it as he has proven to be a truly awful human being. I had forgotten his racist attempt to put the Georgia election worker in the crosshairs of Trump's worst followers until the tape of him saying deplorable things ("passing around USB drives like they were vials of heroin or crack cocaine") was played again. What an awful person.

[WrestlingRasta]

19 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Your second paragraph seems like wishful thinking to me.

But I too was struck by the irony of Giuliani being on the other side of a RICO case given his prior history. However, I also applaud it as he has proven to be a truly awful human being. I had forgotten his racist attempt to put the Georgia election worker in the crosshairs of Trump's worst followers until the tape of him saying deplorable things ("passing around USB drives like they were vials of heroin or crack cocaine") was played again. What an awful person.

Just curious what you mean wishful thinking?  

[Wrestleknownothing]

26 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Just curious what you mean wishful thinking?  

I do not think it is likely he will go to jail pending trial.

There is the law, and then there is legal realism. Holding a former president, who is also a current presidential candidate, in jail is not realistic. They can, and will I think, convince themselves that he can be muzzled, all past experience to the contrary. And as a presidential candidate he has a strong reason not to flee the US, perhaps the strongest possible reason, meaning he is also not a flight risk.