Rittenhouse was legally in possession of that rifle

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I meant, in general, where do you get your info. Your "keep eating up what they feed you" sarc implies that Scott's sources feed him fake junk and you're sources don't feed you crap, but nourishes you with pure nutritious journalistic manna from the gods of truth.

As for your WSJ article, it doesn't discount what Scottw said. As in this quote from the article:
"Retail investigators blame changes in sentencing laws in some states for an uptick in thefts. In California, a 2014 law downgraded the theft of less than $950 worth of goods to a misdemeanor from a felony.


Also this WSJ article backs up Scottw's post: https://www.wsj.com/articles/califor...te-11604361241

If you think the WSJ feeds you good stuff, would you like to discuss its articles on Critical Race Theory, or the Rittenhouse verdict?

So a 2014 law puts this in the news now?

Be very afraid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So a 2014 law puts this in the news now?

Be very afraid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why are you asking me? I quoted the article YOU posted. Check with the WSJ.

If I were to attempt a guess, I would suppose it takes time to develop new strategies to changing circumstances. As those strategies seem to succeed, they proliferate over time. Until it becomes an obvious crisis and authorities react with new laws and greater enforcement. There seems to have been a confluence of loosening restrictions and cutting law enforcement. With the obvious results. So regulations and enforcement may change in another or previous direction.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Why are you asking me? I quoted the article YOU posted. Check with the WSJ.

If I were to attempt a guess, I would suppose it takes time to develop new strategies to changing circumstances. As those strategies seem to succeed, they proliferate over time. Until it becomes an obvious crisis and authorities react with new laws and greater enforcement. There seems to have been a confluence of loosening restrictions and cutting law enforcement. With the obvious results. So regulations and enforcement may change in another or previous direction.

Or maybe just like the cost of everything over time, it becomes ineffective to enforce laws for minor transgressions that cost $5K to prosecute for a $500 crime.
But those are very important and the IRS enforcing tax fraud that’s millions isn’t worth it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Or maybe just like the cost of everything over time, it becomes ineffective to enforce laws for minor transgressions that cost $5K to prosecute for a $500 crime.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is true...an AR-15 is less expensive and more effective for preventing these transgressions...and you probably only need to prevent one to send a clear message that these transgressions won't be tolerated