Badgercakes7 t1_je90zw3 wrote

Something like 99% or more of all illegally trafficked firearms in the US a start off being purchased legally and enter the black market through one of several methods. By decreasing the number of firearms on the legal market through laws and restrictions, we decrease the number of firearms available to make their way into the illegal markets. So yes, you are in fact correct, with increased laws and restrictions on the purchase of firearms (especially federal laws rather than just state laws) we can make sure these guns would never have brought here!!


Badgercakes7 t1_je37mw6 wrote

Reply to comment by JTMoney33 in Norwich or New London? by [deleted]

Norwich is probably going to have more in the way of detached houses, though if you’re looking to rent an entire house not in an apartment complex in either town you’re gonna be paying an arm and a leg. New London has a better night life than Norwich, though Norwich is closer to the casinos if that’s your style. Ignore people that talk down on either of these two towns, they’re both pretty good places. If you come here sometimes you hear people talk about crime in those towns but it’s basically because there was some crime back in the 90s and now it’s just where minorities live so older folk assume it hasn’t changed.


Badgercakes7 t1_je36h9c wrote

Reply to comment by jtherese in Spotted in New Milford by British_Rover

I never said relying on our legal system is the argument against murdering people in the streets, I’m saying it is the alternative. The argument against murdering people in the streets should be self evident to anyone who is not a violent sociopath.


Badgercakes7 t1_je2yw4k wrote

Reply to comment by jtherese in Spotted in New Milford by British_Rover

Ya that “almost” is doing some REAL heavy lifting in that sentence.

And let’s say you’re right, that sexual assault is under sentenced. Fine. What is your plan? Because you are commenting here in support of someone with a “pedophile Hunter” sticker.

Do a simple google search yourself on how often vigilante / mob violence targets innocent people, often members of marginalized groups. Research the Salem witch trials. Hell, research Germany in the late 30s. Can you really not see why people might be hugely concerned by people claiming all members of the LGBTQ community, not to mention all liberals who support them, are groomers/pedophiles in one breath and calling for the murder of pedophiles in the next?


Badgercakes7 t1_je2x1us wrote

Reply to comment by jtherese in Spotted in New Milford by British_Rover

Do you have any stats to back up what you are saying, because “grossly under sentenced” is a pretty vague statement.

Regardless though, your alternative is, rather than change the laws to create stricter sentencing for sexual assault, is to empower random people to murder people in the streets, without a trial by jury?


Badgercakes7 t1_je2pie0 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Spotted in New Milford by British_Rover

They aren’t being downvoted for being “anti-pedo” they’re being downvoted for being pro-murder. We have a criminal Justice system in this country, with is basis in “innocent until proven guilty” for a reason. If you can PROVE someone has committed sexual assault of a minor, by all means arrest them. But there’s a really good reason why vigilante “justice” is illegal; it is just as likely to hurt an innocent person as a guilty one. Read about the Salem witch trials if you want a geographically close example.


Badgercakes7 t1_je2ay8t wrote

Reply to comment by timmahfast in Spotted in New Milford by British_Rover

Given that the conservative crowd has spent the last several years painting the entirety of the LGBTQ crowd as pedophiles/groomers, ya I’d say that’s problematic.

Not to mention I can’t possibly see how allowing people to murder others without due process could possibly have negative consequences. Nope, never heard of the Salem witch trials.


Badgercakes7 t1_jdhul58 wrote

  1. Do you have a source for your claim that most violence against Jewish people is committed by the black community? I tried searching and can’t find anything besides some random people on Twitter saying it.

1a) Even if it were true, what’s your point? Is violence against the jewish community better or worse because black peoples are doing it? Are you somehow justified in attacking jewish people because black peoples are doing it too?

  1. I don’t really see how that’s “propaganda” unless your saying that glorification of murder DOESNT set a bad precedent. Regardless of whether rittenhouse was legally justified in killing those people, or not, it was still one person killing several others. You can make an argument to justify it but that doesn’t mean we have to GLORIFY it, which is what that quote is saying.

Badgercakes7 t1_j9v6smv wrote

I possess and use firearms, I have hands on experience shooting a gun. I did not ever claim that SOME gun owners are capable of what you’re claiming, I am saying that <100% of them are. I’m sure that people with guns are, in some cases, capable of being useful but statistically speaking, having untrained armed citizens get involved in law enforcement leads to higher likelihood of innocent people (often random bystanders) being shot 12345


Badgercakes7 t1_j9up6ld wrote

Dude. Are you serious? Our police are trained (to some extent) to obtain”positive id” of wrong doing prior to using deadly force and guess what? They get it wrong not infrequently. And those are people who do this for a living and are trained, quite specifically, in doing this. And you want to empower some dumbass whose only training is an afternoon sitting through a PowerPoint on gun safety and firing 3 rounds in a gun range to try and do the same thing?

You are so hung up on the idea that people would only use deadly force if the are 100% sure of wrongdoing but that completely isn’t the case. Look at Ahmaud Arbery. Those guys killed him, thinking he was a threat, because he was jogging in the “wrong” neighborhood. People make mistakes, especially when they believe themselves (correctly or incorrectly) to be in a life or death situation. In the case of the kid with the pear, the cop asked the kid to put his hands in the air. He did and he happened to have a pear in his hands, the cop thought it was a grenade so he shot him. Our trained professionals get this wrong, which is the entire reason they are given qualified immunity, and you expect someone without their training to do better? This isn’t some Hollywood movie, you’re not a superhero.


Badgercakes7 t1_j9uhsyz wrote

The issue is that once the catalytic material is removed from the converter it is basically impossible to prove it was not stolen. So you’re right you cannot enforce it that way. So create requirements that catalytic material sales needs permits and licenses. Or that one-off sales need to provide proof of purchase and that the place purchasing the catalytic converter must obtain prior proof of purchase and retain that proof for a period of so many years.

There are ways to do this, we just aren’t.