Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
Almost $2M worth of stolen goods recovered, and the criminals get less than 1 year in jail + 2 years of probation? $2M for less than a year? Sounds like crime really does pay in California:
California organized retail theft ring suspects plead guilty
I wonder if they are hiring…
We’ll just make law-abiding gun owners pay instead of locking up violent, gun-toting criminals. Yeah, that’s the ticket… yeah…
San Jose approves gun owners liability insurance
I love this quote from the article:
“The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wrote in an op-ed with the Los Angeles Times last week. [emphasis mine]
By definition, law abiding gun owners (like the ones who would comply with this new law) have nothing to do with criminal behavior or gun crime. So why should they be singled out to pay for violence reduction initiatives, rather than the entire population? Particularly when it was the majority vote that put the politicians in power who now refuse to hold criminals accountable for their violent actions?
Here’s another doozy:
On Monday, Liccardo explained at a news conference that the proposal intends to better compensate shooting victims and their familes, as well as make it harder for people who aren’t willing to follow the rules to own a firearm, KTVU reported. [emphasis mine]
But the majority of criminals who use guns in the commission of their crimes are already prohibited from owning a firearm (even Politifact concedes this point). In addition, these criminals are going out to shoot people – an act of far greater legal consequence than ignoring this new requirement. To believe that this law will somehow “…make it harder for people who aren’t willing to follow the rules to own a firearm…”, in particular criminals, is laughable. They won’t even notice.
How about this:
“While gun rights advocates argue that gun owners should not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms,” Liccardo said, via the report, the “2nd Amendment does not require the taxpayers to subsidize folks to own guns.”
But the taxpayer is not subsidizing law-abiding gun owners – they are instead subsidizing criminals. This is like blaming banks for bank robberies, automobiles for drunk drivers, airplanes for hijackings – oh, and guns for gun crime. It’s the criminals, stupid!
Well, at least it is clear and convincing evidence that California liberals hate gun owners more than they hate criminals. Who’d have thought?
From the “WTF?” bin:
Washington state lawmakers introduce bill that would reduce penalties for drive-by shootings
When violent shootings are on the rise, let’s reduce the penalty for one of the more common shooting methods of gangs and other criminal organizations. That’ll work to reduce crime, don’t you think? Better still, the proposed bill will retroactively apply to criminals already sentenced, allowing many to be released with time served.
But wait! There’s more! It’s being done to “…promote racial equity…” (of course). How is this not racist? After all, it’s essentially saying that most drive by shooters are minorities.
You can’t make this sh!t up…
I wonder if they will give tax breaks to other retail businesses affected by the smash-and-grab crime spree engulfing San Francisco and other Bay Area cities? Probably not…
San Francisco moves to delay its cannabis business tax to give legal dealers a boost
Soma: noun. A drug described in Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel, “A Brave New World”, purported to have “all the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects.” Read a book, will you?
The liberal media and education systems have convinced some that it’s the guns themselves that are responsible for gun crime – as if the criminal intent of their users has no impact whatsoever. No guns, no crimes – Yeah, right.
My evidence of this absurd transformation from blaming criminals to blaming their implements? Read below:
‘We made a mistake.’ Restaurant apologizes for asking San Francisco police to leave
Next we’ll be blaming hit-and-runs and DUI’s on the car manufacturers. After all, without the cars…
Psaki says root cause of organized retail crime is the COVID-19 pandemic
So it’s not:
1) Inflation, brought on by Biden’s government aid programs (pronounced “free money”)?
2) The “defund the police” movement, which has emboldened criminals (ever wonder why the White House’ answer to this problem is more police funding)?
3) The “no cash bail” movement, which means criminals are released almost immediately? What message do you think this sends to criminals?
But instead of looking inward and blaming the failed policies of this administration, Psaki blames a liberal favorite – guns and gun violence (even though most organized retail crime that she is addressing does not involve firearms) – and throws COVID under the bus while she’s at it. Good job, Jen.
Well, I’ve got news for you – guns don’t make law abiding people into criminals. And to commit gun crimes, by definition you have to be a criminal. So it’s the CRIMINALS, Jen – not the guns or “gun crime”.
And just exactly how is COVID responsible for the rise in crime? Unemployment rates are back to pre-pandemic values. There are more than 10.4 million jobs available at the end of September 2021, and only 4.8 million unemployed. Do you get that? There are TWO TIMES as many job openings then there are unemployed! Unfortunately, free money and government assistance programs (think child tax credit, stimulus payments, eviction moratoriums, etc.) have made many realize that they can just stay home and not work (job quit rates are high – check the JOLTS report). This results in a smaller, less productive workforce that fuels even greater inflation.
So yeah, Jen – it’s guns and COVID… yeah… that’s the ticket… yeah…
Philadelphia recently suffered its 500th homicide:
55-year-old woman becomes Philadelphia’s 500th homicide victim
Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney has chosen to blame firearms:
He also called on lawmakers in Harrisburg to allow the city to pass more restrictive gun laws to keep weapons off the streets.
Uh… by definition, criminals do NOT follow the law… So how will more gun laws stop the criminal use of firearms? Won’ t such laws only impact law-abiding citizens?
“There are people making money selling these guns, making these guns, and the legislature, not the people behind me, don’t care. They don’t care how many people get killed. It’s ridiculous. And cities like Boston and New York that are not dealing with this problem the way we’re dealing with it, there are strict gun laws…we need to have some semblance of that.”
Blaming guns (and a profitable firearms industry) for gun violence in is like blaming cars (and a profitable automobile industry) for drunk driving deaths. It’s just plain stupid. If we really want to have an impact on so-called “gun crime”, then we need to lock up the criminals who use guns – same as we did for drunk drivers. This includes criminals awaiting trial for violent crimes involving firearms.
Bail is not only to ensure that those accused appear at trial; it is also to protect the public. Thanks to the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (upheld by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Salerno, 1987), bail may be denied for defendants awaiting trail for felonies involving firearms or whose release would otherwise endanger society. Criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime should be considered dangerous to public safety – particularly repeat offenders. Low bail – or no bail at all – for these defendants is absurd.
Let’s make and enforce laws that actually impact criminals. How about we try that for awhile before we attack the firearms industry as a whole, or the rights of our law-abiding citizens?
So, punish otherwise law-abiding citizens for even having the gall to own firearms, but when criminals use a firearm to commit a crime they get a walk? AYFKM??
California Democratic lawmakers look to remove penalty for possessing firearm during crime
Here’s a couple of examples – taxing law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals:
San Jose mayor rolls out new gun control proposal days after railyard mass shooting
Chicago reinstates gun and ammunition tax after court deems it unconstitutional
The Rittenhouse verdict – not guilty on all counts – was the right verdict under the circumstances. We should be free to defend ourselves against those who wish to do us harm – including “peaceful” protestors.
I think the message the verdict sends is not that we want teenagers carrying rifles in public, but rather that we’re fed up with the lawlessness of left-wing protests. If you want to attack people or their property, be forewarned – people can and will defend themselves. I also think it sends the message that firearms are a suitable means of defense against gangs of violent thugs – as it should be. Firearms allow the weak or few to defend themselves against the strong or many. It’s no wonder they have been referred to as “the great equalizer“.
The reaction by the far-left was as expected – they protested (who’d have thought?).
This is dumb on so many levels:
San Francisco will pay would-be criminals to not shoot people
OK, so here’s how stupid this is: Do you really think that the criminals expect to be caught for shooting people? And if they don’t expect to be caught for shooting people, then why not take your money, too? I mean, really – if they get caught for shooting someone, do you think their first thought will be “Damn – now I have to give back that $300…”?
Here’s what one person was quoted as saying in response to this new program:
“For many young people, it will be Christmas in … October,” he said, saying those involved will “make it a lucrative hustle, and we will not reduce crime.”
Duh; it just teaches them a new extortion hustle. Who’d have thought?