|
Post by mikebook on May 19, 2005 10:14:17 GMT -5
Then I guess I need to go to the sporting goods store and buy the means to defend myself... 50Lb Draw weight compound bow...Check 3 dozen arrows...Check Claymore sword on wall in hallway...Check
My wife does not like firearms...
It will be sad when he dies. However, the law is what it is. When criminals stop using Capitol punishment or threat of it when they committ crimes, then I will be the first to stand in line to hand out notices to stop its use. Until then, we have the situation that we have. Richard Cartwright used Capitol Punishment when he and his friends attacked that man.
|
|
|
Post by Lili on May 19, 2005 10:21:43 GMT -5
Mike, I disagree with you, but not angry at you, you have the right on your own opinion. There is just one thing I would like to ask you: don’t you think that it is soooo easy to get gun in your country? Wouldn’t you feel much safer and protected if you know that only authorized persons are in possession of weapon? And tell me, sincerely, do you think that when someone shoots another person he thinks about consequences and DP, especially if he is under some kind of drugs or alcohol?
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 19, 2005 10:25:11 GMT -5
in rape cases; should we have a State Rapist to rape the rapist?
After all; thats what he did...
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on May 19, 2005 10:33:29 GMT -5
Lili, it is not that easy. You have to, for a rifle or shotgun, have a background check ran on you. Then you can buy one with not waiting period IF the check revealed that you did not have a criminal record or were under care for mental illness. At which time, the clerk would get it for you. You cannot buy ammo for it at the same time. For a handgun, it is at least a 3 day wait, with the same type of background check. THAT is if you are an ordinary person wanting a firearm. Criminals steal firearms, buy them from friends with no paper trail, etc. I would feel better if I had one because I drive a lot in my personal life(Back roads with little lighting) and i do not want a cell phone. The right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself from crime and tyrany. Look at what happened to crime in Austrailia...When guns were illegal, crime went up because crooks knew they would not be shot. In Florida, they have a new law called the Castle law. Check it out:http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=5685 I hope this helps. Please do not think I am being mean or rude...
|
|
|
Post by Lili on May 19, 2005 10:34:42 GMT -5
in rape cases; should we have a State Rapist to rape the rapist? After all; thats what he did... To be honest, there were times and situations when I thought about that as a good idea...or castrate the rapist..then I sat down and put the finger on the forehead and realized it would make me the same as he is.
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on May 19, 2005 10:35:31 GMT -5
A state supported rapist would be bad because it would discriminate against heterosexuals.
|
|
jj
New Arrival
Posts: 5
|
Post by jj on May 19, 2005 10:38:03 GMT -5
Mike.... I understand your thoughts about feeling safe in this world. I just think that today is not the day to say that you will feel safer when Richard Carwright is dead. There are too many friends and his family does read this thread. Today is not the day to hear how much safer you will feel. Maybe another time.... but not today...... please.
|
|
|
Post by Lili on May 19, 2005 10:41:36 GMT -5
mike I don't want to discus this any further. The only reason is that this tread is dedicated to man who is waiting to die. maybe on another tread.
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 19, 2005 10:45:22 GMT -5
Mike : "A state supported rapist would be bad because it would discriminate against heterosexuals." WHAT ? Does that mean! OH MY GOD - Mike - THINK before you post ! The LOGICAL conclusion to that statement that a rape againt a WOMAN is not as bad as for a MAN to be raped. WHAT ? WHAT? ? If she is heterosexual and raped by a man; thats one thing; but if the man was raped back it would DISCRIMINATE? ? I hope that was some kind of joke or that I read that wrong. WOW. I can tell you that statement is an OFFENSE beyond BELIEF to any rape victim.
|
|
|
Post by Lili on May 19, 2005 10:45:32 GMT -5
Joy, I was writing the previous post before I saw yours. You are perfectly right, sorry...Please belive me that my thoughts are with Richard and his family..
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on May 19, 2005 10:48:27 GMT -5
I am sorry that he will, in all liklyhood, barring a stay or a miracle, will be executed. I am sorry if my views and opinions may be unpopular. And I know that the world is still a messed up place and will continue to be so. It is very sad that he will be executed. I wish that more could be done or that we could turn back time. I am most sorry that a child will be without her father who she depends upon for love and affection. Believe me, I am most sorry for that.
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on May 19, 2005 10:52:07 GMT -5
think about your post. "He raped someone so we will rape him..." That is what you said... What I meant was that the state would have to hire someone and it would discriminate v. a portion of society. That is what I meant. HIRING PRACTICES.
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 19, 2005 10:54:36 GMT -5
That IS what I said.
I was asking you if you think we should rape rapists in order to make rape victims more safe and to show that we hate rape.
Just like you want to kill killers to make possible victims more safe and to show that we hate murder.
I will also ask if we should put the drunk driver in the middle of the road and run him down.
In a middle eastern country earlier this year a persons eye was surgically removed because in an accident he had caused the loss of a man's eye.
All this might seem fair.
But it wouldn't make for a society most would want to live him.,
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 19, 2005 10:56:03 GMT -5
HIRING PRACTICES.
If we had executions, the state would have to hire executioners.
Killing the innocent and the retarded discriminates.
...I don't see the consisistency in your argument.
We either believe the punishment must exactly 'fit the crime' or we believe society can find other, more appropriate, ways to sanction.
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on May 19, 2005 11:02:46 GMT -5
The code of "an Eye for an Eye" is brutal. However, we still have law and they can be changed. That the law can be changed is a good thing. That people's hearts can change is a good thing. That we are open to and accepting of other people's ideas and other people is areally good thing.
|
|