Archived Story

U.S. is too soft on many illegal offenses [UPDATED]

Published 9:27am Wednesday, April 17, 2013 Updated 11:43am Wednesday, April 17, 2013

On gun control: do you own a gun? I do, it’s not registered, I am not an outlaw. My weapon has been used to hunt small game and at one time, deer.

If guns have to be registered, only law-abiding citizens will have unregistered guns; the outlaws will have guns.

Maybe we will have to go to — heaven forbid — third-world country’s punishments. Stapling you, lose one finger and so on.

Drunk driving: first offense loose your driver’s license for a year, as is done in Sweden.

We have become too soft and lenient on a lot of offenses. Some poor person who lifts a loaf of bread to feed his family gets more jail time then a convicted drunk. I don’t believe that’s right.

Create more jobs, build more jails, that will help the economy with more jobs and build infrastructure, keeping the misfits off the streets for sometime.

 

Dave Thompson

Fergus Falls

  • BrendanJanssen

    I would really like to know just how laws and their respective penalties have gotten anymore “soft” or “lenient” than they were, say, 50 years ago. If anything, they have gotten even more strict as far as I know of. Unless of course you are specifically targeting the decriminalization of cannabis in many states. If that’s the case, that’s a whole new argument that I will not bring up here.

    Also, your example of stealing bread vs. DUI is a little ridiculous. In no way, shape, or form has anybody ever gone to jail for stealing a single loaf of bread (in modern times at least). It is petty theft and warrants a fine and possibly community service. A first offense DUI is jail until you go to court, up to 30 days in jail, and a nice hefty fine. The two comparisons are not equal and you are simply trying to stir emotion and illogical thinking.

  • Richard Olson

    The United States has the largest prison population and the highest rate of incarceration in the world. We even beat China and the Russians. And this dude want’s more. That’s not the way to more jobs.
    And where oh where did he get the idea that keeping misfits off the street was desirable?
    We want them on the streets where they can get a gun, free and easy, no background checks! No restrictions! No questions! No waiting! No limits! No responsibility!

    And the next time I hear some conservative gun enabler in either party in congress lecture the American people about personal responsibility I’m going to puke. You can not clear a path for criminals and then tell me how tough you are on crime and what a responsible citizen you are. You proved what you are today. A word I can’t use here. What I can say here is that I’m very very proud to say that no member of my family is now or ever has been a member of congress.

  • Elliot Dallavalle

    Writing “Letters to the Editor” while obviously drunk. That should be a new law. This could put an end to the letters we see from the extreme right-wing members of our society. In front of a judge, Dave would have a really hard time to explain why he wrote this gem – “If guns have to be registered, only law-abiding citizens will have unregistered guns; the outlaws will have guns.” You can only write that kind of narrative when you’re half in the bag.

    • tomdaniels

      lol

  • camobabe

    Amazing! Mr. Thompson has for years written snarling letters against any and all conservative ideology and conservatives in general. This is one for the record books, when the rad libs attack Thompson. Is this a warning to him to get back on the liberal plantation?

    • Richard Olson

      Well Camilla, if what you say is true then it proves that we Liberals are more concerned with content than political affiliation or party.

      • BrendanJanssen

        I was just about to say the same thing. Notice how, yet again, Camilla failed to add anything of value to the discussion at hand.

        Maybe, Camilla, life isn’t as simple as “Hurr durr Republican, hurr durr Democrat.”

  • crucified

    If someone wants to purchase a gun and you demand that he first get a background check and that he register his new gun after the purchase, what will prevent him from giving the seller a false name or address?

    • Walt Henry

      ? Did anyone require a registry, not that I think it’s a bad idea. I would like to know who let a criminal get his gun.

  • Richard Olson

    Well Merle, there is supposed to be a fine and possible imprisonment for lying on the application form.
    The gun enablers love to cite the fact that most liars are not prosecuted and therefore the background check process is ineffective. They fail to tell you that they, the republican gun enablers who love to run interference for pedophiles, crazy people and other common criminals have refused to confirm President Obama’s choice to head the ATF which has now been leaderless since the middle of the last Bush term. They also neglect to tell you that they the republican gun enablers who love to run interference for pedophiles, crazy people and other common criminals have reduced funding for the ATF in general and background checks in particular every chance they get.

    Those are the very same “weak on crime” republican gun enablers who have stymied efforts to trace gunpowder by the use of “taggant’s”, thus hindering efforts of the FBI to trace the manufacture of gun powder in such cases as the Boston bomber.

    By the way Merle, what stops you from giving a false name on a tax return in order to get a refund?

    Also, did you know that those two women who were victims of gun violence and shouted “Shame on you” at those criminal coddlers in the U.S. Senate when they voted down back ground checks for gun purchases, were detained for two hours by Capitol Police and had a BACK GROUND CHECK RUN ON THEM FOR SHOUTING SHAME ON YOU at a bunch of coward senators.

    Put another way… yell at a Senator, get a background check, buy an assault rifle…no background check.

  • Richard Olson

    What kind of mentality is it that says a convicted pedophile should be able to get a gun anonymously, with no back ground check? Why does a convicted pedophile deserve a clear, unobstructed, easy path to gun ownership?

    How about that thug who threatens to kill his wife and kids and now finds himself under a restraining order? He can get a pistol to carry out his threats without a background check to slow him down. What do those “one man one woman” bible thumpers think about that? …When it comes to guns it’s “one man, one woman, one gun, no checks”!

    You’re a champion of this sort of crap Merle. Tell us why you think criminals deserve to get a gun without a background check, because that is exactly what they can do. And this is the practice you approve of. By the way, that old hack about criminals won’t go through a background check won’t wash. We don’t make laws based on what criminals think about those laws, nor whether criminals approve of those laws. To make that tired argument is just another example of taking the criminals part over the remainder of society.

  • Richard Olson

    You can bet your last dollar that if that criminal wanting a gun was a Socialist criminal, he would have a background check every time he tried to buy newspaper!

  • crucified

    All I asked is there a way that the seller can verify that the person buying the gun is the person that they claim to be?

    • Walt Henry

      Is there a way we can verify a person voting in an election is who they claim to be? Is there a way we can verify a person applying for a job is eligible to work in the United States?
      We seem to have a desire to create huge data bases of information about each other. Until 1980, Social Security Cards had a statement printed on the bottom that said “Not valid for identification.”
      It used to be believed a person had the right to be presumed innocent until they did something wrong. Now it seems we want to prove we are not going to do something wrong before they can exercise their freedoms to do anything at all.
      This sounds like a conundrum and it is. Those who so readily want to create files on voters and workers seem to have problems with creating files on felons and the dangerously insane. People who have problems creating files on voters and workers seem to have no problem advocating the creation of files on felons and the dangerously insane.
      Merle, welcome to the world of greys.

  • Richard Olson

    The answer to Merle’s question is…Yes, of course there is. It’s called a BACKGROUND CHECK.

    • crucified

      RO, So If I were a felon and tell the sales clerk that my name is Richard Olson from Fergus Falls, and they do a back ground check on you (thinking I’m you) and I clear the check; can I then purchase a gun?

      • Richard Olson

        A federal background check consists of your social security number history, arrest history, fingerprints, employment history, lawsuit history, there may be more that I’m unaware of.
        In order for you to pass as me you would need my drivers license, my finger prints, and look like me (I doubt you’re that lucky)
        Instead of searching for loopholes to infer that the system is not 100% accurate and therefore a waste of time, you might consider that very few things are 100% accurate or correct. Never the less, the system catches several thousand fakers every year.
        So could you fool the system? Perhaps. So what? Does that mean we shouldn’t check? Does that mean we should give up? Does that mean shouldn’t even try?

        You may also drive drunk for years and never get caught. Does we mean we abandon drunk driving laws, because Merle Hexum didn’t get caught?

        What ever the percentage caught/stopped it is better than the system we now have. Voltaire said “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” You apparently think Voltaire was wrong.

        • Walt Henry

          Richard, just as there ARE somethings that are black and white, your position is correct and any other would not be.

  • camobabe

    I wonder if your two fellow America haters at the Boston Marathon cleared a background check to get the guns they used to kill the MIT campus cop and shoot it out with the pursuing police. Clear a background check for the grenades they threw at pursuing police cars?

    While I support background checks to catch those felons stupid enough to attempt to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, NO laws will prevent that same crook from stealing a gun or buying one from a car trunk dealer in a parking lot.

    And , Richard/Acker/Chipper, how would a pretender know which of your names to use to buy a gun with your name? Which social security number goes with which alias? Which fingerprints match which alias?We can’t even get you to meet any of us for a coffee, so fearful are you that we will put a face to all your identities.

    You and Phaedrus and Larry and Elliotts could catch a flight to any destination and only need one seat.

    • BrendanJanssen

      Well Camilla, you have stooped to a new low. Comparing people who don’t agree with you to the Boston Bombers is absolutely pathetic. I’m all for free speech, but your comments draw the line sometimes, this being a good example.

      Also, it will always be possible that as long as guns exist, people will obtain them illegally. Should we simply throw in the towel because “Well, they are going to get them anyway…”? No! There are ways to make the process much, much harder for those that are not granted the right to bear arms (felons and such). Back ground checks should be required for ALL transactions of guns and munitions.

      Anyways, I have yet to see a logical argument for the original letter writers topic at hand…

      • Richard Olson

        Let’s look at Camilla Ryan’s contribution so far today. First she visit’s the article “Hospital should restrict sale of sugary beverages”. Where she makes absolutely no contribution to the subject matter, instead she uses her privilege to comment to belittle other commenter’s and of course to cut another notch in the continuing conspiracy that is President Obama.

        From that article she moseys on over to the article “Word was wrong choice for story”.
        Where once again Camilla Ryan, our resident troll, makes no contribution to the subject of the article but once again uses her time to make personal remarks about me.

        Then, no doubt feeling quite pleased with herself she blunders into this article taking the part of pedophiles and other criminals over innocent people and calling myself and Larry “America Haters” and comparing both to the Boston Bombers.

        Then she has the cheek to huff up some feigned indignation because we won’t join her for coffee. That’s right Camilla, after spending nine years in the service of my country and being wounded in that same service, I refuse to sit down with anyone who calls me an America Hater. If you’re not satisfied with my identity or my service to my country, I suggest that first thing Monday morning you march your puffed up ego down to the Ottertail County Veterans Service Office and tell Jane or Susan that you doubt my service and my authenticity.
        See what they tell you.

    • Elliot Dallavalle

      Camilla – It has become quite apparent that you view Sunday as a day of repentence. Throughout the week, you must believe you can say anything and violates your good, christian morals and then, BANG – it’s Sunday and you get to clean the slate. I recall the weeping Jimmy Swagger did the same thing after he was caught cheating with a prostitute. Jim Baker did the same thing for similar reasons.

      I hate to break it so you Camilla, but I don’t think that is the way to your Lord. Remember, if I recall, He is watching you 24/7. Better straighten up.

  • crucified

    Although you suggest that I have inferred many things in your comments, up to this point I had not inferred one thing. I merely asked a question, and it was like pulling teeth trying to get a straight answer from you.

    Let me get this straight. In order for a citizen of the USA to exercise their guarnteed 2nd amendment right they need to pass a federal background check consisting of providing their drivers license, social security number, arrest history, fingerprints, employment history, lawsuit history, and possibly more requirements.

    Yet to simply ask a person who wants to take part in the democratic process to simply provide a photo ID to prove they are who they claim to be and that they live where they claim to live before they’re allowed to cast a ballot in the state or in the district that they show up at is somehow racist?

    • Richard Olson

      Merle if you have a rough time finding a straight answer in my comments, your inability is of your own choosing.
      Secondly, if you can not see a difference between marking a ballot then dropping it in a box, and completing an application to buy an assault rifle used to kill people, then once again, your inability is of your own stubborn choosing.

      Lastly it takes no special ability to read between your lines to discern that the intent of your questions was not to gain knowledge but rather to belittle protections put in place to protect society from common criminals, pedophiles, perverts and wife beaters. Those same people for whom you seek to clear the path to easy, unrestricted and anonymous gun ownership.

  • crucified

    Larry, you’re a fraud (not anger, just an observation of how your words contradict your actions). At least RO admits that he’s an atheist and he does not hide the fact that he’s a radical socialist. (not labeling, just using proper definitions to define you and RO”s ideology) But you try to portray yourself as a moderate and a religious man, yet you agree 100% of the time with a socialist atheist. If you’re a moderate I would hate to see what a pure leftist looks like.

    Wherefore by their fruits you will know them. Matthew 7:20

    • Richard Olson

      “Wherefore by their fruits you will know them“. Matthew 7:20; exactly Merle.

      “When you carry the water of common criminals, pedophiles, perverts and wife beaters. They shall count you as their champion” Olson 7:21.

  • abby

    What is wrong with you Camilla? You seem to be angry all the time. You strike out at anyone who dares to contradict you. You claim to be a veteran, I can’t believe any true veteran would talk that way about another veteran. I think you could benefit from some counseling. Maybe your perspective on life would brighten.

  • crucified

    I understand how the leaders of the democrat party are evil and will use any method at their disposal to gain more power and take away liberties from the citizenry, but what is unbelievable is that their blind followers are ignorant enough to believe that the things they are doing are actually efforts to protect them, provide for them, and help them. Nor do the minions in the liberal movement understand incrementalism.

  • Richard Olson

    Throughout this thread it’s hard to miss the fact that the gun enablers never denied their aspiration that common criminals, perverts, pedophiles and wife beaters should have easy, fast and unrestricted access to guns. Further, that arguing those malcontents deserve no such access or gate makes you an “America Hater” and on equal footing with the recent Boston Bomber.

    Merle says that such arguments are tantamount to “…..taking away liberties from the citizenry,…”
    Since when did common criminals, perverts, pedophiles and wife beaters have such liberties in the first place? Where in the second amendment are fast, easy and unrestricted access granted to common criminals, perverts, pedophiles and wife beaters?

    The American Right has sunk so low that a talk radio host (Bob Davis) in Minneapolis said that the burden of having your child murdered was “less”, than the burden he would suffer if made to fill in some blank spaces on an application form. He even said the victims of the Newtown massacre could “go to hell”.

    Make no mistake about it, Merle Hexum and Camilla Ryan believe that after threatening to kill his wife and children, that abusive husband and father has a constitutional right to gain a firearm within minutes. Further that such “right” can be anonymous, must be fast, can not be restricted and there is absolutely nothing on earth anyone can do about it. We must sit quietly, do nothing while the common criminals, perverts, pedophiles and wife beaters and their champions wave the American Flag and shout “to do otherwise would subject us to the whims of a tyrannical government”.

  • crucified

    No one wasted their time commenting on your absurd notion that conservatives want criminals, perverts, pedophiles and wife beaters to have guns. We want them to be thrown in jail or executed. It’s your side that is soft on crime. It is your side that thinks you can rehabiltate pedophiles. It’s your side that refuses to pass “Jessica’s Law” in all states. It’s your side that appoints lenient judges who slap criminals hands and set them free again. It’s your side that protects the identity of the mentally disturbed.

    • Richard Olson

      You can say that until you turn blue Merle. At the end of the day it is still your side that wants common criminals, perverts, pedophiles and wife beaters to have fast unrestricted and easy access to assault rifles used to kill people. You know it, I know it and everyone not a gun/crime enabler knows it.

      Your last comment is nothing less than a pathetic attempt to distract attention from your “soft on crime” position. “there’s nothing to see here folks, look over there.”

      • Walt Henry

        Richard, It seems some not only fail to understand what others write, they fail to understand what they write. It also seems some do not understand the consequences of certain actions/inactions yet are not afraid to proclaim their ignorance in public. You are correct. If background checks are not implemented throughout the land people like the man who shot Gabby Giffords are given the right to kill first and be punished later, even though they are known to be dangerous. It seems to me those who are so “pro-life” and “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” kind of people would be the first to suggest we should now try do something to protect the rights which were taken from the 6 who died at the hands of an armed madman from being taken from others.

        • Richard Olson

          Of course you are right Larry. But some people are so infested with ideological viruses, their mind so fogged by a misreading of history they can actually take the part of the criminal while proclaiming a paean to law and order and refuse to see a paradox.

          What if abortion were illegal, just as shooting people is illegal and I suggested that known illegal abortionist should never the less be able to get abortion instruments anonymously, quickly and without restriction.

          Then I came here and said…“I think all abortions should stop, but I think known abortionists should be able to get the tools of their trade.”…Would you think I really wanted abortions to stop?

          • crucified

            First, you two need to get a room! “Of course you are right Larry”

            Second, I not only do not want to give murders instruments that kill, but I want them locked up or executed, including those who murder the most defenseless members of our society (the unborn).

        • crucified

          Walt Henry/Larry, you’re a fraud (not anger, just an observation of how your words contradict your actions). At least RO admits that he’s an atheist and he does not hide the fact that he’s a radical socialist. (not labeling, just using proper definitions to define you and RO’s ideology) You try to portray yourself as a moderate and as a religious man, yet you agree 100% of the time with a socialist atheist. If you’re a moderate I would hate to see what a pure leftist looks like.

          Wherefore by their fruits you will know them. Matthew 7:20

          • Richard Olson

            Merle, your needle is stuck.

  • Walt Henry

    Yes, I know, I hurt someone’s feelings but here’s the problem–Is it better just to let rants and rages go unchallenged? Do we let our national dialogue become like an unstirred cup of cocoa–the good stuff stuck to the bottom or do we mix it up so it tastes as it was intended?
    To decide to lock up murders is a great solution if you are willing to first let them murder; that is, to let their rights exceed the rights the murdered might have had to life, liberty and to pursue happiness.
    And, you know, conservatives are often against bigger, costlier, more intrusive government and the higher taxes that go with it. How much would a fence across the borders of America cost? How much to “man” it? How much to sonar the entire length to check for tunnels? How much to capture those who get through, under or over the wall? How much to detain and prosecute? And for what? The last time we tried immigration reform, conservatives blocked the creation of a data base for employers that was complete and accurate so job applicants could truly be e-verified?

  • Richard Olson

    I guess I must spell this out in the simplest terms. On one hand Merle says that Larry is insincere in his professed faith because he agrees on some issues with someone who professes the opposite or no faith.

    On the other hand Merle says that he hates crime, criminals and lawlessness, but agrees with the position that criminals have a right to get and keep the tools of their trade, namely firearms. In this, Merle engages in the very same behavior he finds so repulsive when he asserts Larry does it. In other words, professing a certain belief while encouraging actions contrary to that professed belief.

    As I understand the term, that is what’s called hypocrisy.

    • Walt Henry

      Didn’t the friends of Jesus include prostitutes and tax collectors-people too low and dirty for the righteous to associate with? Aren’t there some universal truths of decency that transcend theological beliefs?

Editor's Picks

Olson Funeral Home expanding

A planned expansion project at Olson Funeral Home is set to begin any day, according to co-owner Guy Olson. Read more

High temps today could bring storms

As heat in the area stays put after a hot weekend, the added humidity could mean severe weather this evening. Read more