Okay good discussion so far, we have wandered at times but that is okay
I apoligize that I stated the first federal execution (sheesh that was way back in the 1700's), but ment the first federal execution in years (30ish I believe).
Personally, I believe in it. I do put down that we should give due process, but we should carry forth an execution, especially on the criminals that violate societys sacred norms (yes all society's have that).
Most of the anti-death penality seem to be in the camp of not doing it because they might do the wrong person. That falls back under the due process and making sure it is the right one. Then it is the States responsibility to carry out the discipline of the law.
Some things to think about in some of the arguments, the Evangelical Lutherans (the ones that are on scripture and not for changing it because of how people feel), Practicing Jews, Devote Muslims, still believe in it. Catholics are in a wierd paradox-the ammendment from 1972 did not pass, but the practice is to not to enforce it. Kinda wierd that the Pope who controls the doctrine doesn't change it. So by the old books the Catholics are for it, but by modern mouth they are not. Way too much scripture can be qouted for Capital punishment (see Luthers works on Church and State {he was a big proponet of seperate, but answerable church and state}, St. Augustines Two Kingdom's, and we can find it in both New and Old Testemant support, and in the Korran, and in Mosaic Law), these passages show how society is expected to carry out there duty of the sword.
Btw, old testement forbid the family to take vengence, the killing of the murder was by the elders and law-givers, not by the family that was done wrong. The seven cities of refugee were set up to sort out who was right and wrong and to prevent vengence, as it was seen that vengence could lead to chaos.
Maybe those that are afraid of carrying out the death sentance because you can never be sure, are you stiffeled by your lack of courage to act? Is it better to sit and do nothing? Or is it better to act and be wrong. I would rather that I act and be wrong, for it is decision that leads, and indecision that breeds a lack-luster into your spirit. I am not afraid to look evil in the eye, call it what it is, and act on it.
I may be a viewed as a barbarian for wanting to act and wanting justice to be carried out, but I would rather be the barbarian that is Justice, than the weak-spirited enlighted that fails to see what something really is.
Gun battle.
First off, the U.S. is NOT the most heavly armed state. Switizerland and Israel beat us out. Both have lower crime rates than the great states that were shown (Scandinavia, GB, Western Europe in general). Most people don't realize this but every male from 18 to 55 serves in the milita and takes home there service rifel and 7 clips of ammunition. Do you hear about those crazy swiss bombers? Nope. The Israelies don't have a problem with there own people causeing crimes, but are armed due mostly to the threat of Terrorist attacks. They do have more Terrorist attacks then most Western European countries (not sure how they stack up with GB with the activities of the IRA going down hill...well hopefully).
The first Kid to go out and shoot up a school, happened way before the girl you metioned, as there was shooting as far back as the 1800's, especially if you take in the killings that happened against the Indians (not the wars, but the one's where people would shoot up a reservation), and many happened over land disputes. The kids shooting started going in the 50's with the guy who shot up Texas A & M, then it kept getting more and more. If we are going to go pointing fingers at inanimate objects, then the TV and Computer Games, Media, and Movies are all in this mess as much as the gun is.
I think most people who do not like guns are afraid at how equal it brings people. Man is created equal but with diffrences. Those diffrences are made less with the gun. Equality scares people, and being scared is what most people don't want.
People are what make the gun dangerous. People are the blame, and those that can not handle the responsibility should not have one. Why is it that no one is responsibile for anything anymore? That I can not say, as it is what splits society. Some say that no one is in control of what they do. Others say you are your own, and you choose your destiny.
Question to the gun haters, why are you afraid of me owning a gun? Why does that bother you? I don't care and will tolerate your race, creed, relgion, and choice of pursuit of happenies (as long it doesn't violate someone else), and will protect you to make sure you have that right. But you fear me in my home with my weapon of choice. Mind you, I am the responsible one, with it locked up, and the ammo locked up in a diffrent spot, and statistically I am not the one nor are my guns, the one's who cause the crime in your country.
And to gun nuts, why are you afraid of waiting periods, liscencing, and training? I think we need just as much work as we do with cars (for record keeping and use) to keep them in proper use. I do think we should be allowed any type of weapon up to a certain calibre (I want my M2 browning 50 cal machine gun! especially the old anti-air version with quad 50's!! whoot), and some people can't have that if they are not of sound mind or body.
Btw Rikard, what is it with your beef with Bush? I think you really must have a broccli fetish and are still upset at his family not supporting it. That or he drank your beer and bogarted the J's at a party. You sound almost like my elderly Aunt, who thinks any one who isn't a democrate is the devil. I have reason's to dislike Bush, but calling him a murder is pretty far-fetched. It is on the line's of the statement that, "Queen Beatrix is a murder! She is bringing the world into a realm where we let the adult killers live, and the unborn, unfit, and elderly die." I don't believe that, but you see how you are coming across?