Snoslinger Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 15 minutes ago, steve from amherst said: So should they get back all their rights including the 2nd? So now we are comparing the right to vote to a weapon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member steve from amherst Posted March 21, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 21, 2019 Just now, Snoslinger said: So now we are comparing the right to vote to a weapon? WE are comparing one right to another . How do you feel about reinstating the 2nd. Analer says yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, motonoggin said: The level of bootlicker is high in this thread... It’s been steadily climbing for the last two years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 21, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Anler said: Why do you think that is? Are you going to hire and train a felon? How are they supposed to pay back this money that some are saying they should? We used to try to rehabilitate convicts, now its all about sitting in a box till your time is up. I really don't think that statement is completely accurate. There are hundreds and hundreds of programs in our prison system and I FULLY support getting them basic education and skills training. Problem is drugs. Until we find solutions that work and we all agree what we are doing ain't working crime will always be an issue because so much of it revolves around drugs. We also have to recognize some simply can't or refuse be rehabilitated. They have to want to be a productive member of society. No way to force them. Edited March 21, 2019 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 minute ago, steve from amherst said: WE are comparing one right to another . How do you feel about reinstating the 2nd. Analer says yes. Which is dumb. One is a vote, one is a weapon. Just because you believe the right to vote should stay on this case, doesn’t mean the right to own a gun should remain if you committed a crime with a gun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 21, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: Which is dumb. One is a vote, one is a weapon. Just because you believe the right to vote should stay on this case, doesn’t mean the right to own a gun should remain if you committed a crime with a gun! Not really. Both are constitutional rights that the SC has ruled can be removed under certain circumstances. Edited March 21, 2019 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member steve from amherst Posted March 21, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 21, 2019 Just now, Snoslinger said: Which is dumb. One is a vote, one is a weapon. Just because you believe the right to vote should stay on this case, doesn’t mean the right to own a gun should remain if you committed a crime with a gun! And that in itself brings something else to the discussion. Should the 2nd be reinstated for those who are convicted on a nonviolent offense ? Yet not be for those convicted of violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 30 minutes ago, steve from amherst said: Wife used to work for a pool company. They hired a dude from a 1/2 way house. Dude was a hard worker, knew his shit and all, But fuck he couldn't make the right decisions about life even if ya put an exposed rat trap over the wrong ones. We have several ex cons who work here. 1 is my top guy. Sometimes people make mistakes and decide to change their lives for the better. Keeping them down serves no purpose but to keep them incarcerated. And at the cost of $70k per year per convict its best to try and keep them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 31 minutes ago, steve from amherst said: Not every convict is a broke ass junkie. Law was designed around embezzlers and crooked bankers. People who have assets can always be sued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member steve from amherst Posted March 21, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 21, 2019 Just now, Anler said: People who have assets can always be sued. ANd that's the idea of the NH law. That people like Bernie Maddoff should be paying for their own incarceration instead of hardworking taxpayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Just now, steve from amherst said: ANd that's the idea of the NH law. That people like Bernie Maddoff should be paying for their own incarceration instead of hardworking taxpayers. Totally agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 21, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, steve from amherst said: ANd that's the idea of the NH law. That people like Bernie Maddoff should be paying for their own incarceration instead of hardworking taxpayers. 1 minute ago, Anler said: Totally agree. Guess I don't see why everyone should be somewhat responsible financially for their incarceration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member steve from amherst Posted March 21, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Anler said: Totally agree. NH democrats don't. They want to repeal it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 18 minutes ago, steve from amherst said: NH democrats don't. They want to repeal it. Like I said, anyone who steals or defrauds is still vulnerable civily. I dont think the state should be rewarded for mass incarceration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Snoslinger said: Which is dumb. One is a vote, one is a weapon. Just because you believe the right to vote should stay on this case, doesn’t mean the right to own a gun should remain if you committed a crime with a gun! again you can't pick and chose what rights you think should have stipulations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted March 21, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Angry ginger said: depression and anxiety does not mean your incapable of analyzing candidates positions and making informed choices. Better question in my situation is should my right to have a weapon be taken away. TBH while I like to go shooting with friends i chose to not own a gun because of the fact I can be a hothead but i'd have no issue with the government not allowing me a handgun so that I don't off myself or someone else. 5 hours ago, SnowRider said: Per the discussion and logic presented by a few 🤡 Posse members you should not be allowed to vote. I respect your transparency in regards to your anxiety and depression. Taking it a step further - you’re on medication - should that disqualify you? Do prescriptions that treat certain forms of mental illness disqualify someone from voting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 30 minutes ago, SnowRider said: Do prescriptions that treat certain forms of mental illness disqualify someone from voting? should they? if you beleve in the constitution and we know you don't. you should not have stipulations unless they are across the board affecting all rights and that should only be alowed with a vote from the whole countery with somthing like a 85% in favor . but we know it is to inconvient if some one has hurt feelings we should deff infringe on every ones rights and give that power to a hand full of life long politicians Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted March 21, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 21, 2019 Just now, Ez ryder said: should they? if you beleve in the constitution and we know you don't. you should not have stipulations unless they are across the board affecting all rights and that should only be alowed with a vote from the whole countery with somthing like a 85% in favor . but we know it is to inconvient if some one has hurt feelings we should deff infringe on every ones rights and give that power to a hand full of life long politicians Backread the conversation before you comment. Until then STFU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.