Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

It's basically about efficiency. We need to get the inmates in and out of court as fast as possible. I'll give you one example. Let's say the DA starts a trial, but the case breaks down and he decides to start calling jail cases. If those inmates are a considerable distance away it would take too much time to round them up and transport them. Also, some inmates don't like to go quietly so that adds more time. The DA doesn't usually plan ahead for a trial breaking down because that would mean putting too many defense attorney's on stand by. Feeding them would be a nightmare.

Counties typically don't want to spend money on the extra transportation cost and man power it would take to transport the inmates. Attorney's, agency reps, probation officers and visitors don't want to have to go multiple locations to conduct court/jail business. They tend to like one stop shopping.

Wow...I didn't realize all that...thanks for the insight.

So why not move the court room outside of town where the jail is then?

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Wow...I didn't realize all that...thanks for the insight.

So why not move the court room outside of town where the jail is then?

It's not a case of the public not wanting a jail built downtown because of the proximity, they just don't want to pay for it. They think overcrowding is fine. They don't care about inmates. They would rather their taxes be spent on education. But what they don't realize is that it's not all about the inmates. They don't ever consider the conditions the officers have to work in and the danger of the situation when your officer to inmate ratio is 100 to 1. These inmates are on lockdown 21 hours a day. Tensions run high and if you keep piling them on top of each other your going to have a greater risk of rioting, inmate on inmate or inmate on officer assaults. We've actually had two inmates die recently and now the county is facing a huge lawsuit. If they don't do something about it they're gonna be spending a considerable amount of money either way.

I say all of this for one reason. People are very quick to say we need more jails, but they simply don't understand all the factors that go into making that a reality.

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

They would rather their taxes be spent on education.

People may say that, but they never vote on initiatives that would benefit education (especially here in CA). Anything related to education that would raise taxes gets shot down pretty quickly. I wish it were different... if we could spend more money on education, i think the trickle-down effect on a bunch of other problems would be positive.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, I like dynamite. I have a right to own dynamite. Dynamite should be prohibited in certain areas such as schools, hospitals, and Goverment buildings. Other than that you should be allowed to cary it anywhere that you want. The amount of dynamite that I own should be of no concern of anyone else so long as I do not use it in a manner that is not in conjunction with the law.

Okay, so I jest - my point is, that just b/c we have a right to something doesn't mean it is of no concern to others. Guns are inherently dangerous. When used properly by good people they pose little threat to others. However, the careless use or misuse (whether accident or intentional) of guns poses a threat to all around them.

Sorry, if ur packing, I don't want my 4 year old around you. Further, I live in the city with about 150-200 people living w/in a 100 foot radius of my home with about 30 kids. I believe there is a legitimate interest prohibiting people from carrying concealed weapons as they travel around in high density areas. You want a gun in ur home, okay. You want to carry it around where my and others kids live and play - not as thrilled with that concept.

You missed the point. I am not going to bother trying to argue with you, because you took it to a whole new extreme.

[Lady Brave]

What do you guys think about limiting the number of handguns a person is allowed to own? If we're only talking about protecting one's life and property, do you really need an arsenal of weapons to do that?

I for one do not think handguns should be a "collectible" item. As I said before, if your going to purchase weapons for collecting purposes you should be accountable for the amount of weapons you own (i.e. a collector's license). I know several people I deal with who literally own hundreds of handguns and they are constantly trading/selling their weapons.

Currently, I am required to report to ATF anyone who requests 4 or more handgun permits. In the beginning, I didn't typically report the older retired gentlemen who came in my office who got 10 permits at a time because they were considered collectors. To my surprise an ATF agent told me retirees were the worst offenders for selling weapons to criminal offenders and making straw man purchases. Who knew Gramps wasn't so innocent after all?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

It's not a case of the public not wanting a jail built downtown because of the proximity, they just don't want to pay for it. They think overcrowding is fine. They don't care about inmates. They would rather their taxes be spent on education. But what they don't realize is that it's not all about the inmates. They don't ever consider the conditions the officers have to work in and the danger of the situation when your officer to inmate ratio is 100 to 1. These inmates are on lockdown 21 hours a day. Tensions run high and if you keep piling them on top of each other your going to have a greater risk of rioting, inmate on inmate or inmate on officer assaults. We've actually had two inmates die recently and now the county is facing a huge lawsuit. If they don't do something about it they're gonna be spending a considerable amount of money either way.

I say all of this for one reason. People are very quick to say we need more jails, but they simply don't understand all the factors that go into making that a reality.

Yes, but it seems the issue is always 1 of 2 things.
1- They don't want a jail around them.
2- They don't want to pay for it.
I think we should pay for it. It's a problem and it needs to be addressed. Of course, I don't think they should have the luxuries of modern day living, they should be fed slop (so to speak), they should have no TV, no weight room, no rights. We coddle inmates, and I think the general public knows it and therefore is unwilling to pay for a state of the art facility.
If the people are too dumb to pay for it, it should happen anyway.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

What do you guys think about limiting the number of handguns a person is allowed to own? If we're only talking about protecting one's life and property, do you really need an arsenal of weapons to do that?

I for one do not think handguns should be a "collectible" item. As I said before, if your going to purchase weapons for collecting purposes you should be accountable for the amount of weapons you own (i.e. a collector's license). I know several people I deal with who literally own hundreds of handguns and they are constantly trading/selling their weapons.

Currently, I am required to report to ATF anyone who requests 4 or more handgun permits. In the beginning, I didn't typically report the older retired gentlemen who came in my office who got 10 permits at a time because they were considered collectors. To my surprise an ATF agent told me retirees were the worst offenders for selling weapons to criminal offenders and making straw man purchases. Who knew Gramps wasn't so innocent after all?

Problem is, they are collectables.
The Single Action Army is still being manufactured today, although antique Peacemakers are obviously rare and highly regarded as collectors items.

All original, good condition first generation Single Action Armies, those produced between 1873 and 1941, are among the most valuable to the collector. Especially valuable, often going for well over $10,000

Colt Single Action Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Yes, but it seems the issue is always 1 of 2 things.
1- They don't want a jail around them.
2- They don't want to pay for it.
I think we should pay for it. It's a problem and it needs to be addressed. Of course, I don't think they should have the luxuries of modern day living, they should be fed slop (so to speak), they should have no TV, no weight room, no rights. We coddle inmates, and I think the general public knows it and therefore is unwilling to pay for a state of the art facility.
If the people are too dumb to pay for it, it should happen anyway.

The majority of people who are housed in local jails have not been convicted of an offense. There is a slight difference in how those inmates are treated as compared to those who have been convicted of an offense and are serving active time. However, those who are in state prisons have more personal freedoms than those in local jails.

Our inmates have TV and that's all. They are not even allowed to play any type of games due to betting and fights breaking out. I've eaten the food. It's slighter better than slop, but not by much.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Problem is, they are collectables.
The Single Action Army is still being manufactured today, although antique Peacemakers are obviously rare and highly regarded as collectors items.

All original, good condition first generation Single Action Armies, those produced between 1873 and 1941, are among the most valuable to the collector. Especially valuable, often going for well over $10,000

Colt Single Action Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about weapons classified as antiques, relics or curios. Those weapons are not subject to the gun control or brady act.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

The majority of people who are housed in local jails have not been convicted of an offense. There is a slight difference in how those inmates are treated as compared to those who have been convicted of an offense and are serving active time. However, those who are in state prisons have more personal freedoms than those in local jails.

Our inmates have TV and that's all. They are not even allowed to play any type of games due to betting and fights breaking out. I've eaten the food. It's slighter better than slop, but not by much.

Alright...since we obviously can't fix the local jails, how about more state institutions? They are overcrowded too.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about weapons classified as antiques, relics or curios. Those weapons are not subject to the gun control or brady act.

But they became antiques from people not using them and letting them collect dust on a shelf. There are guns being made today that will be antiques, but you would not want to allow someone to store them.

FYI- I am for having as many guns as you want...but I am not for semi-automatic weapons or AK-47's and the like. There is no need for those in hunting. A good way for gun control activists to get rid of those is to try to pass a law that will make it illegal to use those types of weapons when hunting. Once that is passed, how can someone argue that they "need" it?

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Alright...since we obviously can't fix the local jails, how about more state institutions? They are overcrowded too.

I'm all for more state prisons. Another thing we need is more mental health facilities. A good portion of the inmate population consists of individuals that need treatment for mental health problems. A psych doctor stopping by the facility a few times a week doesn't cut it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

It is funny. Kinda weird, but funny.

that was hilarious...it reminds me of all the smack i talk and the flack i get for it at work.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

I'm all for more state prisons. Another thing we need is more mental health facilities. A good portion of the inmate population consists of individuals that need treatment for mental health problems. A psych doctor stopping by the facility a few times a week doesn't cut it.

I'll take your word for that, cause I would guess there are a lot that are "faking it". If they had a lawyer worth their salt, they would have argued insanity.
I think the country needs more capital punishment. I also think we could use more public hangings in town squares. Show people the consequences to actions. There is a reason those countries that cut off hands when you steal have low theft rates.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I'll take your word for that, cause I would guess there are a lot that are "faking it". If they had a lawyer worth their salt, they would have argued insanity.
I think the country needs more corporal punishment. I also think we could use more public hangings in town squares. Show people the consequences to actions. There is a reason those countries that cut off hands when you steal have low theft rates.

Corporal punishment? You want us to spank them too? LOL, I'm just messing with you.

I don't have a problem with capital punishment. I do have a problem with the amount of time it takes for the appeals process. Around here, you're gonna sit on death row at least 10-15 years.