When it was written, "regulated" meant in proper working order - such as a well regulated clock. Whether the amendment gives the rights to the state militias or to individuals is the question.

yeah didn't you know, they can tell by the size of their skulls or just their skin color.

you should want no cash bail for the point you are making. lol do you not know what it means? or do you just really hate poor people?

That's a pretty big aside.

But aside from that, prosecutors in the US love to overcharge to try and get a defendant to plead out. Let's say you steal a cheque book and write 5 cheques to the tune of 1000 dollars. You won't get charged for stealing 1000 dollars. You'll get one count per cheque, with the risk of the sentences running consecutive if you take it to trial. Same for selling drugs, they can charge each individual sale as a separate count. And don't get me started on "conspiracy". Basically, any crime where more than one person is involved, they charge you with the crime and also with conspiracy to commit that crime, as separate counts. And your favourite subject, guns. In the federal system, carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony carries a minimim mandatory (meaning it's not up to the judge) 5 year sentence enhancement. A second offense carries a minimum mandatory 25 year sentence enhancement. It's called stacked 924c's, look it up. You have people doing 25+ years for selling a few dime bags of crack with a gun in their pocket.

I posted out a response to you d2 but I didn't actually post it or something in regards to you claiming that dems are lenient on crime. The gist is that dem politicians have been very outspoken on where they are on cash bail, reducing sentences, decriminalizing some crimes, BLM riots and defunding the police. I think this is going to be a problem for whoever the dem nominee as I think trump is going to hammer them with claims of soft on crime.

Also, if someone steals and writes 5 bad checks off someone else account why shouldn't that be treated as 5 different crimes? If you murder 5 people you are charged with 5 murders.

What's the difference between writing 5 checks for 200 dollars each and writing one check for 1000 dollars? Same crime, same amount, different possible sentences. Up to 5x in this hypothetical.

Oh wait, the junkie writing 5 checks was engaging in a "continuing criminal enterprise". Let's tack on another 20 years for that, for good measure. He'll be coming out on a walking stick or in a box.

Anyone who thinks that sentencing laws and/or practices in the US are not draconian is either dissembling (bahbah) or not sufficiently informed (Luciom).

many countries don't tbh (i prefer the american system).

In most places you get some aggravated sentence because you do that regularly but you don't get a count each

If you commit a crime once and that's all we have on you, of modest gravity, you could still be a decent person who slipped in life.

If you commit 5 crimes of modest gravity in 5 different occasions over some span of time, that's your way of life, we have elements to consider you exceptionally worse for society than the other person.

Yes, cash bail should not be a thing for minor offenses. The primary purpose purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant's appearance in court. If there is a suspicion that the defendant has the means, motivation and opportunity to flee, then bail should be assessed in such an amount as to ensure that he or she doesn't. Additionally, if there is a suspicion that the defendant is a physical danger to the community or to possible witnesses, he or she should be held without bail. If it is assessed that the defendant is an economic danger to the comminity, bail should be assessed commensurate with the danger suspected. Otherwise, the defendant should be released on personal recognaizance, until his or her first failure to appear in court, or breach of any other bail conditions.

All dems did was enforce those principles. Giving some small time crack dealer a 5k bail he can't make makes no sense, given what bail is supposed to be used for.

Sure. You can subscribe to this theory. So if there is a jurisdiction that runs those sentences consecutively, I would call that "draconian". That was the point at issue in the present discussion.

Also, all this other stuff.

what is this 5 different crimes thing about? i once saw a charging sheet with 27 counts of LMFR(shoplifitng) on it. i was amused.


eta- are you guys talking about 5 different crimes at once or like on the second page?

Draconian would be three strikes , you get a bullet in your head

You jest. Bro, a life no parole sentence is a death sentence.

Still haven't responded to the other points I made. Don't make me lose respect for you, bruh.

Which points? I don't use Tapatalk as I find it horrific, I go through browser (boomer moment)

I gave a lot of different examples of overcharging in the post above.

But, ok, for example, in my specific case, I was charged with forgery (making the cheques), larceny (stealing the money), and uttering (passing the fake cheques). So, I made some fake cheques, but I take it to trial, I have literally have life+100 worth of charges, for stealing 250k. In my case, taking it to trial was pointless, and I ended up with a 20 month committed sentence after pleading out. But prosecutors stack charges and counts exactly for this reason. The fact you can charge pretty much anything that has been done more than two or three times as a punishable by life offense gives prosecutors way too much power within the system.

Go and look up all the people who are doing the best part of life for stacked 924c's in the feds

okay. so we're talking about one case with overcharging. because luciom is talking about second page sentence enhancement of subsequent offenses. you can't have sentence enhancement until you've been sentenced on a prior crime, otherwise they are all first offenses while they are playing out.

both are awful. my personal favorite is charging drug dealers with failing to attach the requisite tax stamps. it's an extra felony for some made up tax that no one has ever paid.

Lol, you think that is an isolated incident? I gave you the broad outlines of how this happens above. There are thousands of examples of each of those things. Especially stacked 924c's.

Ironically, you mention second and subsequent. That was exactly the problem with the stacked 924c's. Prosecutors "forgot" the "and subsequent" part, and the courts just went along with it.

The ones above this post, a handful posts above. You serious?

Do you mean this? You dont give much data here.

I mean are violent criminals locked up forever like they should be under NORMAL, not draconian, laws? Uinder draconian laws they are shot in the head after torture, but that horrible human beings should be guaranteed to never again re enter society under any circumstances isn't draconia, that's what normal human beings believes to be the only way to deal with them for 99.99% of human history.

And the USA fails at that disastrously.

If you are repeatedly violent you should have life no parole every time. Removed from society for good. GG, **** you, you are done forever. That's normality. Less than that, the left corrupted our societies.

You torture them for weeks that's draconian

i never said i thought it was isolated. i was a prosecutor i know how shitty the system is.

Nothing to do with what I said. None of my examples included violent crimes.

There is one kind of gun crime that has gone up a lot since then - young men, usually with no criminal records and who legally bought weapons, committing mass shootings.

These still don't make up a large percentage of gun violence, but they get a ton of publicity, and rightfully so, IMO. These incidents scare normal law abiding citizens (especially those who don't own guns). They scare me, because that is the only kind of gun violence which is likely to directly affect me or those I care most about.

I'm not in a gang, and I stay out of neighborhoods with a lot of gang activity, so I'm not going to be killed in gang related violence. I don't have a firearm in my home so I'm not going to be killed by accident or anger by a roommate, family member, or romantic partner.

However, I do go out to nightclubs, where some mass shootings have happened. I occasionally go to large outdoor festivals, where mass shootings have happened. I go to supermarkets, where some mass shootings have happened. I gamble in a small casino with very little security, where several people actually got shot by a disgruntled gambler just about a year ago.

These mass shootings are the reason I think legal gun purchases should be much more difficult to make than they are now, even if it means criminals still have them. Criminals are not who I'm worried about.

Columbine was in 1999. An acquaintance bought the guns for the kids.

Guns
In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. Harris had a Hi-Point 995 Carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines and a Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun. Klebold used a 9mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a Stevens 311D double-barreled shotgun. Harris's shotgun was sawed-off to around 26 inches (0.66 m) and Klebold shortened his shotgun's length to 23 inches (0.58 m), a felony under the National Firearms Act.[70][71] On November 22, 1998, their friend Robyn Anderson purchased a carbine rifle and the two shotguns for the pair at the Tanner Gun Show, as they were too young to legally purchase the guns themselves. After the attack, she told investigators that she had believed the pair wanted the weapons for target shooting and denied that she had prior knowledge of their plans.[19] Anderson was not charged

So let's keep 2 things separated.

On one side you want guns to be exceptionally harder to buy than *they were in 1999*. I get it, it's a take, we can discuss it if you want.

On another side here i am claiming that all the so called "very rightwing" decisions by SCOTUS from 2008 on, those takes on the 2a which some people consider absurd, overstretched and so on, didn't increase gun violence.

Do you have data showing that Columbine like events became more frequent following Heller and the other decisions, and that in most of those cases pre Heller the shooters wouldn't have been able to access guns?