grandmaster Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Supreme Court struck down mandatory min sentencing for gun crimes as unconstitutional. Time to abolish the power of these &^@# tards http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/supreme-court-quashes-mandatory-minimum-sentences-for-gun-crimes-1.3031847 No point in having any government. Idiot judges run the country. Doesn't matter who is in power. Unless u get all provinces to agree and revamp that charter/constitution, these judges run the country. Lawyers and judges have made it their own empire. No politician can stop these idiots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Never go full Alex Jones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Democracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 my brother committed suicide with a gun, and guns make me sick... and I don't think mandatory minimum gun sentencing is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTruthHurts Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 You do understand the minimum gun sentencing applies to ANY gun crime, right? Inheriting a gun through a will then not licensing it because of the furors of life you get 3-5 years? Do you think 3 years as a min is really necessary here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 All you have to understand is this statement from the article: "The government has not established that mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment act as a deterrent against gun-related crimes," she wrote. "Empirical evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTruthHurts Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 All you have to understand is this statement from the article: "The government has not established that mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment act as a deterrent against gun-related crimes," she wrote. "Empirical evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes." I love empirical evidence. The only thing our world can rely on being a justification in doing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 All you have to understand is this statement from the article: "The government has not established that mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment act as a deterrent against gun-related crimes," she wrote. "Empirical evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes." Statistics can be manipulated. See this article for the impact and how some studies show it truly makes a difference:http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr02_1/p5_1.html#section5_2 Putting away a bad guy who committed a crime and getting a longer prison time is a certainty. There does not need to be question about that fact. This law was created because judges were not keeping these guys off the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTruthHurts Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Statistics can be manipulated. Putting away a bad guy who committed a crime and getting a longer prison time is a certainty. There does not need to be question about that fact. This law was created because judges were not keeping these guys off the streets. How exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 You do understand the minimum gun sentencing applies to ANY gun crime, right? Inheriting a gun through a will then not licensing it because of the furors of life you get 3-5 years? Do you think 3 years as a min is really necessary here? It's only in place if Crown seeks indictment. Crown will not seek that in your case. It was meant for serious crimes that judges were not dealing with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 How exactly? Look at the link a couple posts up. Also you did not acknowledge the certainty that the person incarcerated has no ability to commit further crimes while he is away from the public. That alone is all that is needed when Crown comes after some of these types of criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikal Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Right call by the Supreme Court. Not all firearm related crimes call for a 3 year minimum sentence. Now if they were only looking at minimum sentences for violent crimes involving firearms I could get behind that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 my brother committed suicide with a gun, and guns make me sick... and I don't think mandatory minimum gun sentencing is necessary. I'm sorry for your brother but mandatory min for gun crimes is not related to that. These are guys who are threatening or using their guns on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banned01 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 ? Is there really a problem in Canada when it comes to guns ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 ? Is there really a problem in Canada when it comes to guns ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Talk to me after your neighbourhood has a drive by and someone gets shot, or worse, an innocent get the bullet. Some a hole shot up my house few years back and the bullet was 10 feet away from my daughter's window. I would want that guy to pay and not have some liberal idiotic judge slap him on the wrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 You do understand the minimum gun sentencing applies to ANY gun crime, right? Inheriting a gun through a will then not licensing it because of the furors of life you get 3-5 years? Do you think 3 years as a min is really necessary here? exactly All you have to understand is this statement from the article: "The government has not established that mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment act as a deterrent against gun-related crimes," she wrote. "Empirical evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes." exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Talk to me after your neighbourhood has a drive by and someone gets shot, or worse, an innocent get the bullet. Some a hole shot up my house few years back and the bullet was 10 feet away from my daughter's window. I would want that guy to pay and not have some liberal idiotic judge slap him on the wrist. if someone threatened your daughter's life and you don't trust the system... well i know what id do to the guy, and it has nothing to do with minimum sentencing - but not every gun crime is equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Supreme Court struck down mandatory min sentencing for gun crimes as unconstitutional. Time to abolish the power of these frack tardshttp://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/supreme-court-quashes-mandatory-minimum-sentences-for-gun-crimes-1.3031847 No point in having any government. Idiot judges run the country. Doesn't matter who is in power. Unless u get all provinces to agree and revamp that charter/constitution, these judges run the country. Lawyers and judges have made it their own empire. No politician can stop these idiots Ok, based on that post, you know nothing about the law. Please read some books, especially about the charter. Judges have a duty to interpret the charter; a power which was democratically given to them. If it weren't for these "frack tards," abortion would still be illegal, we wouldn't have women in political office, we wouldn't have gay marriage, we wouldn't have equal right for homosexuals in Alberta. These "frack tards" are often the voice of reason when politicians refuse to act on controversial issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTruthHurts Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 It's only in place if Crown seeks indictment. Crown will not seek that in your case. It was meant for serious crimes that judges were not dealing with. But the possibility is there when it shouldn't be. You are circumventing the problem instead of fixing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTruthHurts Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Statistics can be manipulated. See this article for the impact and how some studies show it truly makes a difference:http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr02_1/p5_1.html#section5_2 Putting away a bad guy who committed a crime and getting a longer prison time is a certainty. There does not need to be question about that fact. This law was created because judges were not keeping these guys off the streets. You can't use a survey to justify statistical fraudulence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.