Re: Gang defense and tactics
Several quick things- one, someone mentioned the judge in CA telling the jury to ignore the first two of the thug's 3-strikes- it's just like DC, Chicago, the Supreme Court ordered them to allow gunownership, and all they did was make you jump thru so many hoops no one could either afford or find the time to do so.
Around here people are pushing to treat gang members as terrorists, we figure if there are 3-4 thugs, attacking innocent people, they are in essence a terrorist group, and could- should- beprosecuted under the Homeland Security Act- doesn;t require all that evidence and judges have to act more- appropriately.
Finally libs know exactly what they're doing. There are just too, too many examples of places that have outlawed guns, and that resulted in huge increases in violent crimes. It is simply unbelievable to think libs don't realize that. Now the question is- since they MUST know the consequences, why do they still insist on it?
The primary reason for always electing conservatives is the judges they appoint. If a lib appoints one you can bet he does not 'defend and support the Constitution of the United States' as he takes the oath to do.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.