Professional Soldiers ®
Page 14 of 14 « First 41213 14
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Early Bird (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=45)
-   -   And Arizona Makes Three! (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28522)

Richard 04-26-2010 06:48
Concealed or not...legal or not...registered or not...and so it goes...

Richard

Quote:
Lawmakers: Military could quell Chicago violence
AP, 25 Apr 2010

Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.

Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops.

The request comes amid a recent surge in violent crime, including a night last week that saw seven people killed and 18 wounded, mostly by gunfire.

Fritchey says Chicago has had 113 homicide victims this year. He says the police department has done a commendable job, but its resources are stretched thin.

Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis says he appreciates the lawmakers' frustration and willingness to help, but doubts the National Guard is the best answer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042503518.html

Peregrino 04-26-2010 08:18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard (Post 327438)
Concealed or not...legal or not...registered or not...and so it goes...

Richard
Another shining example to add to the argument supporting victim disarmament zones.

"And so it goes." :rolleyes:

koz 04-26-2010 08:24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard (Post 327438)
Lawmakers: Military could quell Chicago violence
AP, 25 Apr 2010

Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.

Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops.

The request comes amid a recent surge in violent crime, including a night last week that saw seven people killed and 18 wounded, mostly by gunfire.

Fritchey says Chicago has had 113 homicide victims this year. He says the police department has done a commendable job, but its resources are stretched thin.

Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis says he appreciates the lawmakers' frustration and willingness to help, but doubts the National Guard is the best answer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042503518.html
I really don't understand how this happens. I mean with the Chicago gun ban, no one has guns right?

dennisw 04-26-2010 10:44
Maybe Chicago just needs an influx of more community organizers. :D

greenberetTFS 04-26-2010 12:24
Born and raised on the SW side of the city,sure am glad I'm gone...........:mad::(:rolleyes:

Big Teddy :munchin

rdret1 04-26-2010 14:44
Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen (Post 327247)
The only way to get everything uniform is an all-too-powerful central government.
The unintended consequences of this aren't worth it.

In practice, a state would tend to imitate whatever was working elsewhere.
If a state has laws which attract law-abiding citizens and drive away criminals, neighboring states would have to change their laws or risk exchanging desirable citizens for undesirable ones.

We've seen this principle in practice when it comes to economics.
Higher state tax rates drive away the productive while excessive social welfare programs attract the unproductive.
I didn't mean everything had to be uniform. As you stated in a roundabout way, commonality tends to happen over time. Right to carry is a good example. It started with one state and has made its way to several. Economics I consider a quality of life issue. States like Texas have done well with no state income tax, instead relying on a consumption tax, which BTW I would think would be the way to go federally. Other states want to tax anything they can think of in order to raise revenue.

When criminal law is involved, vs civil law, a mish mash of 50 seperate entities can only cause chaos for interstate travelers. Small differences would not be a problem, but major differences would IMO.

Green Light 04-26-2010 15:02
The federal government sat on its hands too long. The states will protect their sovereignty if required (that's why each state has its own army and air force). AZ is protecting its citizens who are being terrorized by unfettered transborder criminals (Poncho Villa anyone?).

GratefulCitizen 04-26-2010 22:33
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdret1 (Post 327500)
When criminal law is involved, vs civil law, a mish mash of 50 seperate entities can only cause chaos for interstate travelers. Small differences would not be a problem, but major differences would IMO.
Agreed.

The problem is not in the principle.
The problem is in the unintended consequences.

The federal government often exercises great authority with the best of intentions.
Once a precedent is set, future office holders may not have the best of intentions.

What worries me most about the concentration of power is this:
what type of person/personality has the ambition to hold offices of such immense power?

When we delegate limited powers to various offices, and load them with difficulty, it tends to attract those who have the heart of a servant.
When we delegate "kingly" powers to various offices, it tends to attract the tyrannical-minded.

Don 04-27-2010 02:22
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen (Post 327585)
Agreed.

The problem is not in the principle.
The problem is in the unintended consequences.

The federal government often exercises great authority with the best of intentions.
Once a precedent is set, future office holders may not have the best of intentions.

What worries me most about the concentration of power is this:
what type of person/personality has the ambition to hold offices of such immense power?

When we delegate limited powers to various offices, and load them with difficulty, it tends to attract those who have the heart of a servant.
When we delegate "kingly" powers to various offices, it tends to attract the tyrannical-minded.
Look out...you might find a tinfoil hat in your future.
Attachment 15316

In all seriousness...very nice post.

rdret1 04-27-2010 03:32
Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen (Post 327585)
Agreed.

The problem is not in the principle.
The problem is in the unintended consequences.

The federal government often exercises great authority with the best of intentions.
Once a precedent is set, future office holders may not have the best of intentions.

What worries me most about the concentration of power is this:
what type of person/personality has the ambition to hold offices of such immense power?

When we delegate limited powers to various offices, and load them with difficulty, it tends to attract those who have the heart of a servant.
When we delegate "kingly" powers to various offices, it tends to attract the tyrannical-minded.

I think the current mood of the country illustrates the resistance someone like that will encounter, at least until the "youth" have been "taught" differently.

Utah Bob 04-27-2010 07:26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Light (Post 327503)
The federal government sat on its hands too long. The states will protect their sovereignty if required (that's why each state has its own army and air force). AZ is protecting its citizens who are being terrorized by unfettered transborder criminals (Poncho Villa anyone?).
Pancho probably had a poncho.;)
Alas, even a cavalry regiment stationed outside of town didn't prevent Senor Villa from f***ing up Columbus NM.

Dozer523 04-27-2010 07:54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah Bob (Post 327622)
Pancho probably had a poncho.;)
Alas, even a cavalry regiment stationed outside of town didn't prevent Senor Villa from f***ing up Columbus NM.
During DMVS training we paid 'em back. During a map check near Columbus, (late 80's) The conversation went like this:
"That is not where we are."
"I think so."
"I don't think so, go ask that guy."
"What makes you think I speak Spanish? You ask him."
"Hola, Senor. donde' esta Mexico?"
"Mexico? Aqui Mexico."
"Mount up! Gimme That map. Follow me."

6.8SPC_DUMP 04-27-2010 16:38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dozer523 (Post 327433)
Didn't turn out that way for South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, or Tennessee.
Great point about the horrors of secession/civil war and the Southern states hadn't even lost their right to the slave trade yet.

Now when some people from states whose laws I like (TX for ex.), talk about wanting to seceded from the US; it's because of having laws like MA's universal healthcare or NYC's gun laws forced on them.

Isn't the FDA just the President's claimed legal justification to dictate food intake - not the body making the decision on implementing it?

Didn't the EPA serve the same function for Obama's Cap and Trade regulation as it was originally purposed?

If being pro states rights not the best answer to balance the divisions of government: what would be a better method?

99meters 04-28-2010 04:06
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 326894)
Is this preference based entirely in your experiences as a LEO or do you also draw from some trajectory of American political philosophy?

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/html_...cc4c03286.html


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:47.
Page 14 of 14 « First 41213 14
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright 2004-2026 by Professional Soldiers ®