{Politics so we don't have to change the subject.

On 10/28/2020 7:53 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:31:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make it legal to
burglarize bike shops.

If everyone affected by the burglary gives informed consent, why not?

Then it's not a burglary. It's a donation.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/28/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:05:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 4:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 12:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 9:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2020 10:21 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:37:34 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:27:56 -0000 (UTC), news18

wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:01:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Uh, the Government woke up one morning and took all
the weapons form
Australia's citizens with a vanishingly small number
of casualties.
They actually obeyed.

Naah, there are more registered firearms in Australia
than ever.
If you pass the handling tests and have a valid reason
for aÂÂ* gun, you
can get a licence.

Protecting your drug stash isn't a valid reason.
Penile substitution isn't a reason.
Bragging my gun is bigger then your gun isn't a reason.


Out of curiosity what are valid reasons? I suppose
"Defending my sheep
against dingoes" might be but, what about "I enjoy
target shooting"?

Both those.

Rural property owners have it easiest. Pest control,
killing injured/
diseased stock, etc all valid reason. Also, they can
authorise you to
shoot on their land and thus yo can get a gun owners
license.

If you are a member of a target shooting club, require
range/facilities,
the club can authorise you to obtain a license.

Your can also join the Sporting Shooters and similar
other clubs, abide
by their rules and get a licence to go game shooting in
certain areas.

You can not get a pistol license unless you are a target
shooter(can keep
it at home) or a licensed security guard(only carry when
working).

Lol, a senior Australian Federal Police officer is for
the chop. Instead
of leaving his glock in the safe at the end of the day,
he took it on
holiday to shoot targets, etc and then allowed another
person to use it.

Our system just prevents someone like Tommy that goes
gaga suddenly
acquiring a gun and popping any one they want to. There
are the usual
criminal holes and slack checking problems, but generally
it works.




Works about as well as the 100+ year old Heroin ban:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...an/ar-BB19ktm0



https://thoughtleader.co.za/admin-2/...een-shot-down/



And in parallel logic:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make it
legal to burglarize bike shops.

(Really?)




Very effective:

https://abc7chicago.com/bike-shop-bu...swood/5111172/


https://cwbchicago.com/2019/01/linco...rglarized.html

https://wgntv.com/news/lincoln-park-...n-three-weeks/

Right. As I say, bike shops do get burglarized despite the laws. And
people do sell and use heroin despite the laws.

You seem to imply that anti-heroin laws do no good. One might similarly
say that anti-burglary laws do no good.

Which laws should be repealed and why?

It isn't the law, per se, but the enforcing of the law that matters.
In Singapore, for example, the penalty for dealing dope is hanging and
they do hang those convicted of the crime. And the penalty is enacted
within weeks of the conviction. Not 20 years later.

And, Singapore has the lowest number of drug users in the world.

I do think that quick enforcement is far better than delayed
enforcement. I don't know how we'd ever get to quick enforcement in the
U.S., though. We've got a long tradition and a long list of precedents
that allow horribly long delays when dealing with even horrible crimes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/28/2020 8:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 7:53 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:31:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make
it legal to
burglarize bike shops.

If everyone affected by the burglary gives informed
consent, why not?

Then it's not a burglary. It's a donation.



or 'reparations' as is currently claimed.
Just ignore the flames in these 'peaceful protest' images:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=october+20... es&ia=images

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:45:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:05:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 4:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 12:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 9:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2020 10:21 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:37:34 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:27:56 -0000 (UTC), news18

wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:01:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Uh, the Government woke up one morning and took all
the weapons form
Australia's citizens with a vanishingly small number
of casualties.
They actually obeyed.

Naah, there are more registered firearms in Australia
than ever.
If you pass the handling tests and have a valid reason
for aÂ* gun, you
can get a licence.

Protecting your drug stash isn't a valid reason.
Penile substitution isn't a reason.
Bragging my gun is bigger then your gun isn't a reason.


Out of curiosity what are valid reasons? I suppose
"Defending my sheep
against dingoes" might be but, what about "I enjoy
target shooting"?

Both those.

Rural property owners have it easiest. Pest control,
killing injured/
diseased stock, etc all valid reason. Also, they can
authorise you to
shoot on their land and thus yo can get a gun owners
license.

If you are a member of a target shooting club, require
range/facilities,
the club can authorise you to obtain a license.

Your can also join the Sporting Shooters and similar
other clubs, abide
by their rules and get a licence to go game shooting in
certain areas.

You can not get a pistol license unless you are a target
shooter(can keep
it at home) or a licensed security guard(only carry when
working).

Lol, a senior Australian Federal Police officer is for
the chop. Instead
of leaving his glock in the safe at the end of the day,
he took it on
holiday to shoot targets, etc and then allowed another
person to use it.

Our system just prevents someone like Tommy that goes
gaga suddenly
acquiring a gun and popping any one they want to. There
are the usual
criminal holes and slack checking problems, but generally
it works.




Works about as well as the 100+ year old Heroin ban:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...an/ar-BB19ktm0



https://thoughtleader.co.za/admin-2/...een-shot-down/



And in parallel logic:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make it
legal to burglarize bike shops.

(Really?)




Very effective:

https://abc7chicago.com/bike-shop-bu...swood/5111172/


https://cwbchicago.com/2019/01/linco...rglarized.html

https://wgntv.com/news/lincoln-park-...n-three-weeks/

Right. As I say, bike shops do get burglarized despite the laws. And
people do sell and use heroin despite the laws.

You seem to imply that anti-heroin laws do no good. One might similarly
say that anti-burglary laws do no good.

Which laws should be repealed and why?

It isn't the law, per se, but the enforcing of the law that matters.
In Singapore, for example, the penalty for dealing dope is hanging and
they do hang those convicted of the crime. And the penalty is enacted
within weeks of the conviction. Not 20 years later.

And, Singapore has the lowest number of drug users in the world.

I do think that quick enforcement is far better than delayed
enforcement. I don't know how we'd ever get to quick enforcement in the
U.S., though. We've got a long tradition and a long list of precedents
that allow horribly long delays when dealing with even horrible crimes.

Singapore has an advantage in being, quite literally, a "city state"
with it's much simpler legal system. In the event of a death sentence
the sentence is automatically forwarded to the President for action.
The president can ignore the question, in which the sentence is
carried out, return the case to the court for re-trial or pardon the
criminal.

But, no, I doubt that such an act would be acceptable in the U.S. as
there are such a multitude of "bleeding hearts" who, I suggest, view
things in a somewhat abstract manner.

One can only speculate on those who gather outside a Texas prison
holding candles when some character who has raped and murdered some 77
year old grandmother and stole her Social Security check is executed.

Would they would light candles if it were their grandmother... or
wife, laying there on the floor with her petticoat up around her
waist?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:43:32 +0700, John B. wrote:


It might be noted that in various periods New York was "afflicted" with
Jewish gangs, Irish gangs and even earlier by English speaking gangs and
lest we forget, Chinese Tongs (gangs). And even today, in this
enlightened era, there are gangs in New York.

Are these,by any chance connected to 'waves of immigration'?

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 02:53:38 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:43:32 +0700, John B. wrote:


It might be noted that in various periods New York was "afflicted" with
Jewish gangs, Irish gangs and even earlier by English speaking gangs and
lest we forget, Chinese Tongs (gangs). And even today, in this
enlightened era, there are gangs in New York.

Are these,by any chance connected to 'waves of immigration'?

Of course. Although economics seems to have played a part also. As an
example, the little New England village I grew up in was about 50
percent populated by French-Canadians who have immigrated from Canada
to work in the timber business and the woolen mills but in this case
there was plenty of employment available. Much difference from someone
who immigrated to a big city and worked for pennies.

Look up "The Triangle Waist Company fire". 9 hours a day plus 7 hours
on Saturday for $7.00 a week. and lucky to have a steady job!
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 8:52:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 02:53:38 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:43:32 +0700, John B. wrote:


It might be noted that in various periods New York was "afflicted" with
Jewish gangs, Irish gangs and even earlier by English speaking gangs and
lest we forget, Chinese Tongs (gangs). And even today, in this
enlightened era, there are gangs in New York.

Are these,by any chance connected to 'waves of immigration'?
Of course. Although economics seems to have played a part also. As an
example, the little New England village I grew up in was about 50
percent populated by French-Canadians who have immigrated from Canada
to work in the timber business and the woolen mills but in this case
there was plenty of employment available. Much difference from someone
who immigrated to a big city and worked for pennies.

Look up "The Triangle Waist Company fire". 9 hours a day plus 7 hours
on Saturday for $7.00 a week. and lucky to have a steady job!

The Air Force paid me $37/mth as an Airman Basic.

On 10/28/2020 10:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 8:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 7:53 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 13:31:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make
it legal to
burglarize bike shops.

If everyone affected by the burglary gives informed
consent, why not?

Then it's not a burglary. It's a donation.



or 'reparations' as is currently claimed.
Just ignore the flames in these 'peaceful protest' images:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=october+20... es&ia=images

Here's the problem, at least some of the time:

What do you call a protest if 500 people are walking around quietly with
signs, some with toddlers on their shoulders, doing absolutely nothing
illegal?

Then what do you call the same protest if five punks suddenly drive up
with a Molotov cocktail and throw it at some concrete?

What do you call it if those punks then drive off and collect $100 from
a Proud Boys chapter?

I'm absolutely against rioting. I think it's absolutely
counterproductive. But I think not all is what it seems.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/28/2020 10:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:45:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:05:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 4:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 12:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 9:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2020 10:21 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:37:34 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:27:56 -0000 (UTC), news18

wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:01:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Uh, the Government woke up one morning and took all
the weapons form
Australia's citizens with a vanishingly small number
of casualties.
They actually obeyed.

Naah, there are more registered firearms in Australia
than ever.
If you pass the handling tests and have a valid reason
for aÂÂ* gun, you
can get a licence.

Protecting your drug stash isn't a valid reason.
Penile substitution isn't a reason.
Bragging my gun is bigger then your gun isn't a reason.


Out of curiosity what are valid reasons? I suppose
"Defending my sheep
against dingoes" might be but, what about "I enjoy
target shooting"?

Both those.

Rural property owners have it easiest. Pest control,
killing injured/
diseased stock, etc all valid reason. Also, they can
authorise you to
shoot on their land and thus yo can get a gun owners
license.

If you are a member of a target shooting club, require
range/facilities,
the club can authorise you to obtain a license.

Your can also join the Sporting Shooters and similar
other clubs, abide
by their rules and get a licence to go game shooting in
certain areas.

You can not get a pistol license unless you are a target
shooter(can keep
it at home) or a licensed security guard(only carry when
working).

Lol, a senior Australian Federal Police officer is for
the chop. Instead
of leaving his glock in the safe at the end of the day,
he took it on
holiday to shoot targets, etc and then allowed another
person to use it.

Our system just prevents someone like Tommy that goes
gaga suddenly
acquiring a gun and popping any one they want to. There
are the usual
criminal holes and slack checking problems, but generally
it works.




Works about as well as the 100+ year old Heroin ban:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...an/ar-BB19ktm0



https://thoughtleader.co.za/admin-2/...een-shot-down/



And in parallel logic:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should make it
legal to burglarize bike shops.

(Really?)




Very effective:

https://abc7chicago.com/bike-shop-bu...swood/5111172/


https://cwbchicago.com/2019/01/linco...rglarized.html

https://wgntv.com/news/lincoln-park-...n-three-weeks/

Right. As I say, bike shops do get burglarized despite the laws. And
people do sell and use heroin despite the laws.

You seem to imply that anti-heroin laws do no good. One might similarly
say that anti-burglary laws do no good.

Which laws should be repealed and why?

It isn't the law, per se, but the enforcing of the law that matters.
In Singapore, for example, the penalty for dealing dope is hanging and
they do hang those convicted of the crime. And the penalty is enacted
within weeks of the conviction. Not 20 years later.

And, Singapore has the lowest number of drug users in the world.

I do think that quick enforcement is far better than delayed
enforcement. I don't know how we'd ever get to quick enforcement in the
U.S., though. We've got a long tradition and a long list of precedents
that allow horribly long delays when dealing with even horrible crimes.

Singapore has an advantage in being, quite literally, a "city state"
with it's much simpler legal system. In the event of a death sentence
the sentence is automatically forwarded to the President for action.
The president can ignore the question, in which the sentence is
carried out, return the case to the court for re-trial or pardon the
criminal.

But, no, I doubt that such an act would be acceptable in the U.S. as
there are such a multitude of "bleeding hearts" who, I suggest, view
things in a somewhat abstract manner.

One can only speculate on those who gather outside a Texas prison
holding candles when some character who has raped and murdered some 77
year old grandmother and stole her Social Security check is executed.

Would they would light candles if it were their grandmother... or
wife, laying there on the floor with her petticoat up around her
waist?

Some would still light candles. And I wouldn't mock them. There are
those with strong religious convictions against capital punishment.

And there are cogent philosophical and psychological arguments against
it as well. Consider: Death sentences in the U.S. typically take
something like 15 years to be completed - that is, time from conviction
to the actual execution. If after 15 years they actually inject the
fatal drugs, or turn on the electricity or whatever, do you think it
actually acts as a deterrent to the next capital crime?

I don't. Any stupid punk or heinously evil pervert who hears of the
execution will not be moved. They will have forgotten the original
crime, and/or they will think "I'm smarter, I'd get away with it."

It might be more effective to have a convicted perp kept alive but
"legally" dead, with absolutely no chance for appeal based on anything
but (say) new DNA evidence. That is, no appeal because the judge used
the wrong word, the jury didn't have lunch, the witness may have seen
something on TV, etc.

And have the perp kept in visibly miserable conditions - boring as hell,
uncomfortable, visually ugly. And filmed and broadcast to the public for
constant viewing in juvenile justice centers, city jails, YouTube
channels, etc.

Admittedly, I haven't thought deeply about all this, so I'm open to
discussion. But I'm not aware of information showing the current U.S.
practice of capital punishment actually does much good. I think there
are better ways.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/29/2020 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 10:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 21:45:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:05:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/28/2020 4:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/28/2020 12:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/28/2020 9:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/27/2020 10:21 PM, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 08:37:34 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 01:27:56 -0000 (UTC), news18

wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:01:53 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Uh, the Government woke up one morning and took all
the weapons form
Australia's citizens with a vanishingly small
number
of casualties.
They actually obeyed.

Naah, there are more registered firearms in
Australia
than ever.
If you pass the handling tests and have a valid
reason
for a gun, you
can get a licence.

Protecting your drug stash isn't a valid reason.
Penile substitution isn't a reason.
Bragging my gun is bigger then your gun isn't a
reason.


Out of curiosity what are valid reasons? I suppose
"Defending my sheep
against dingoes" might be but, what about "I enjoy
target shooting"?

Both those.

Rural property owners have it easiest. Pest control,
killing injured/
diseased stock, etc all valid reason. Also, they can
authorise you to
shoot on their land and thus yo can get a gun owners
license.

If you are a member of a target shooting club, require
range/facilities,
the club can authorise you to obtain a license.

Your can also join the Sporting Shooters and similar
other clubs, abide
by their rules and get a licence to go game
shooting in
certain areas.

You can not get a pistol license unless you are a
target
shooter(can keep
it at home) or a licensed security guard(only carry
when
working).

Lol, a senior Australian Federal Police officer is for
the chop. Instead
of leaving his glock in the safe at the end of the
day,
he took it on
holiday to shoot targets, etc and then allowed another
person to use it.

Our system just prevents someone like Tommy that goes
gaga suddenly
acquiring a gun and popping any one they want to.
There
are the usual
criminal holes and slack checking problems, but
generally
it works.




Works about as well as the 100+ year old Heroin ban:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...an/ar-BB19ktm0




https://thoughtleader.co.za/admin-2/...een-shot-down/




And in parallel logic:

Sometimes bike shops are burglarized. So we should
make it
legal to burglarize bike shops.

(Really?)




Very effective:

https://abc7chicago.com/bike-shop-bu...swood/5111172/



https://cwbchicago.com/2019/01/linco...rglarized.html


https://wgntv.com/news/lincoln-park-...n-three-weeks/


Right. As I say, bike shops do get burglarized despite
the laws. And
people do sell and use heroin despite the laws.

You seem to imply that anti-heroin laws do no good. One
might similarly
say that anti-burglary laws do no good.

Which laws should be repealed and why?

It isn't the law, per se, but the enforcing of the law
that matters.
In Singapore, for example, the penalty for dealing dope
is hanging and
they do hang those convicted of the crime. And the
penalty is enacted
within weeks of the conviction. Not 20 years later.

And, Singapore has the lowest number of drug users in
the world.

I do think that quick enforcement is far better than delayed
enforcement. I don't know how we'd ever get to quick
enforcement in the
U.S., though. We've got a long tradition and a long list
of precedents
that allow horribly long delays when dealing with even
horrible crimes.

Singapore has an advantage in being, quite literally, a
"city state"
with it's much simpler legal system. In the event of a
death sentence
the sentence is automatically forwarded to the President
for action.
The president can ignore the question, in which the
sentence is
carried out, return the case to the court for re-trial or
pardon the
criminal.

But, no, I doubt that such an act would be acceptable in
the U.S. as
there are such a multitude of "bleeding hearts" who, I
suggest, view
things in a somewhat abstract manner.

One can only speculate on those who gather outside a Texas
prison
holding candles when some character who has raped and
murdered some 77
year old grandmother and stole her Social Security check
is executed.

Would they would light candles if it were their
grandmother... or
wife, laying there on the floor with her petticoat up
around her
waist?

Some would still light candles. And I wouldn't mock them.
There are those with strong religious convictions against
capital punishment.

And there are cogent philosophical and psychological
arguments against it as well. Consider: Death sentences in
the U.S. typically take something like 15 years to be
completed - that is, time from conviction to the actual
execution. If after 15 years they actually inject the fatal
drugs, or turn on the electricity or whatever, do you think
it actually acts as a deterrent to the next capital crime?

I don't. Any stupid punk or heinously evil pervert who hears
of the execution will not be moved. They will have forgotten
the original crime, and/or they will think "I'm smarter, I'd
get away with it."

It might be more effective to have a convicted perp kept
alive but "legally" dead, with absolutely no chance for
appeal based on anything but (say) new DNA evidence. That
is, no appeal because the judge used the wrong word, the
jury didn't have lunch, the witness may have seen something
on TV, etc.

And have the perp kept in visibly miserable conditions -
boring as hell, uncomfortable, visually ugly. And filmed and
broadcast to the public for constant viewing in juvenile
justice centers, city jails, YouTube channels, etc.

Admittedly, I haven't thought deeply about all this, so I'm
open to discussion. But I'm not aware of information showing
the current U.S. practice of capital punishment actually
does much good. I think there are better ways.



I would be in favor of capital punishment for capital crimes
in principle, but practically only if the State were either
competent or honest but the track record says otherwise.
I'll frankly say for now I just don't know.

However I agree that what we do have is the worst.

California defendants for example plead _up_ to get the
death sentence because Death Row is a better life than
general population (private cell, better food, better
medical, less violence) and no one is ever executed. This
is no longer a logical or practical system.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971