Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    Gun control only limits the law abiding.

    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.  How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    Gun control only limits the law abiding.

    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.  How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?



    It isn't....to a sane person



    So,if they are insane,then the hate stems from an irrational medical condition, not a predisposition to hate a certain group.

    crime is crime.

    "hate" crime is the great I equalizer in punishment.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?

     

    It isn't worse.

     

    That's why you need evidence that the crime was actually committed with a specific intent to harm a member of a specific minority. That's why these cases involve evidence, for example, that the perpetrators were overheard saying things like "let's get a <racial slur>" shortly before they went out and beat up someone of the race to which the slur pertains.

     

    By an large, opposition to hate crime laws seems to fall in two categories:

     

    1. A misunderstanding and/or rejection of the notion that the intent with which an act is committed is a valid consideration in determining appropriate punishment for an act - that was addressed above; or

     

    2. A largely unfounded opinion that white people are being unfairly victimized by hate crime laws.

     

    I have no doubt that someone could probably come up with a couple links to things charged at hate crimes that don't sound like they should have been. But then one could just as easily link to cases where the prosecution deliberately overcharged the defendant, and the response isn't going to be "ok, well, let's just get rid of those laws that were used in the overcharging".

     

     If I were presented with valid evidence of widespread abuse, I would agree to get rid of them. Otherwise, they're no different in concept than punishing assault with intent to rape or assault with intent to murder, or in punishing premeditated murder, more than malice murder, more than heat of passion manslaughter.

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.

    Hunting off season isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Robbery isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Manslaughter isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Negligent operation of motor vehicle isn't a crime of hate.

     

    OUI isn't a crime of hate.

     

    First degree murder, apart from on a felony murder theory, might somewhat be considered crimes of "hate".

     

    So, no kidding, hate crime laws presuppose that other crimes are generally not ones of "hate".



    Hate is always in their somewhere.  Or disrespect. Or stupidity.  Why focus on hate? Because it gives liberal elites yet another dimension to tell the black man how much they have big government looking out for them?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    How is robbing a black person any worse than robbing a white person?

     

    It isn't worse.

     

    That's why you need evidence that the crime was actually committed with a specific intent to harm a member of a specific minority. That's why these cases involve evidence, for example, that the perpetrators were overheard saying things like "let's get a <racial slur>" shortly before they went out and beat up someone of the race to which the slur pertains.

     

    By an large, opposition to hate crime laws seems to fall in two categories:

     

    1. A misunderstanding and/or rejection of the notion that the intent with which an act is committed is a valid consideration in determining appropriate punishment for an act - that was addressed above; or

     

    2. A largely unfounded opinion that white people are being unfairly victimized by hate crime laws.

     

    I have no doubt that someone could probably come up with a couple links to things charged at hate crimes that don't sound like they should have been. But then one could just as easily link to cases where the prosecution deliberately overcharged the defendant, and the response isn't going to be "ok, well, let's just get rid of those laws that were used in the overcharging".

     

     If I were presented with valid evidence of widespread abuse, I would agree to get rid of them. Otherwise, they're no different in concept than punishing assault with intent to rape or assault with intent to murder, or in punishing premeditated murder, more than malice murder, more than heat of passion manslaughter.

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    hate crimes presuppose that crime is not an act of hate.

    Hunting off season isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Robbery isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Manslaughter isn't a crime of hate.

     

    Negligent operation of motor vehicle isn't a crime of hate.

     

    OUI isn't a crime of hate.

     

    First degree murder, apart from on a felony murder theory, might somewhat be considered crimes of "hate".

     

    So, no kidding, hate crime laws presuppose that other crimes are generally not ones of "hate".



    Hate is always in their somewhere.  Or disrespect. Or stupidity.  Why focus on hate? Because it gives liberal elites yet another dimension to tell the black man how much they have big government looking out for them?




    Ok, so a weak dodge and no direct response. Again. Got it.



    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.



    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     



    I feel sorry for you. Stop being so angry and accusatory of everyone. It is not compelling.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.



    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     




    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.



    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     




    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     




    Except when its black on white then it's just another crime. When its white on black then it's a hate crime. 

     

    Case in point. 

     

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/12/jesse-jackson-white-boy-bus-beating-its-hard-make-/

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.



    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     




    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     



    So, the person who burns your house down because they don't like you: no hate there?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.



    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     




    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     



    So, the person who burns your house down because they don't like you: no hate there?




    Okay..I'll bite. There's a difference. Care to guess what it is?

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    Sorry you don't see that as a direct response.  I think it is pretty direct.

    i guess if it doesn't suit your ideology, you pretend to not understand the point.



    My, you are well practiced in accusing other people of doing what you are doing, even as you are doing it.

    Bravo.

     




    Honestly...if RRF doesn't understand the difference between a 'Hate Crime' and an average criminal offense, it's not worth having the debate. It's really a very easy concept to understand.

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.

    You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

     



    Respectfully I don't understand why one is just a crime and the other is a hate crime. In either case someone burned someone's house down. Why is one worse than the other? Why does the reason make it worse? Why should the punishment for burning my house down be less than burning a black persons house down? Is that black person more important than me? Maybe I'm dense and just don't get it....wouldn't be the first time : )

     

     




    You are not dense..lol...far from it! I can see it from your point of view too...believe me.  It has to do with intent.and I think to some extent civil rights. If you burn a black persons house down because you don't like him as a person...that's a crime. But..if you burn a black person's house down simply because he's black, well that seems like an evil intent which should carry a higher punishment. I think this is why prosecutors are very careful to ascertain intent before they charge with a hate crime. In ordinary circumstances there is no difference...but when someone does something to someone based on the color of their skin, their religious beliefs etc. then there should be a higher punishment.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Gov. Patrick signs bill updating state gun laws

    You burn someone's house down because you don't like them? That's a crime.  You burn someone's house down because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs? That's a hate crime.

    It's the exact same crime regardless of motivation. The victim(s) do not suffer any more nor less, the results are the same. Motivation can (and should) be relevant during the punishment phase of the trial when the judge is presented any mitigating or aggravating factors.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
Sections
Shortcuts