Sunday, February 3, 2013

Judge Jeanine says "Banning weapons to prevent crime doesn't work!" What a hypocrite!

Gun Control Rant #1:

If the video above doesn't play, click here.

Gun Control Rant #2:

But she thinks banning ex-sex offenders from social media, celebrating Halloween, etc, does? Yep, it's okay to trample other people's rights, just not mine! Spoken like a true hypocrite Jeanine! She deals out justice for some but injustice for others?


SOIssues said...

This lady is so typical of the injustice system. Justice for some, injustice for the rest.

She cites amendments when talking about guns, but all of a sudden, when it involves EX-SEX OFFENDERS, then all that, their rights, statistics, etc, goes out the door.

And she also lumps all ex-sex offenders into the "pedophile" group, which is more BS!

That is like me saying all gun owners are murderers because a couple are.

SailorrThom said...

Well whatever furthers their agenda. :-/

Loneranger said...

Does she even know what she said? She is so upset about being placed in danger. She says she would never do that to someone. Somethings can't be made this public as it might cause harm to someone. 20 kids murdered is not enough to justify this? When it only took one to enact the AWA. One to enact the Jessica law. So IMO 20 is plenty.

She thinks every sex offender is a predator a pedophile or a child murderer just waiting to strike. these people surly must have lost all rights. Where did she go to school? She is angry but people that are angry become irrational. Lets compare. She is afraid not only for herself but others that might be effected. She named a ton of people that might be effected. She didn't give a rats ass about sex offenders or their families that live with this day in and day out. She stated that what if. What if some criminal she put away can find her now. What if some criminal can find a witness now. What if someone targets a sex offender and his children and wife? She never thinks that far. This effects her world so now things like this are a big deal. the registry was stated as being justified as it was for the children. Never mind if it might place them in danger. so now we have it. When things come home to roost you don't like it. When the shoe is on the other foot well you get the idea. If the reason they can get away with posting sex offenders is it is all public information anyway and whatever unintended consequences may happen it isn't wrong. Well the same lack of logic applies to this.

She has a point it does place her and others in danger. She made that clear. However what is ok for some is not ok for her. I think she has made her case about the media and how they place people in danger and twist things to sell papers. Well they don't sell papers anymore but do sell advertising. But here is the point I'm making. She said this places people in danger. She said the media goes out of their way to place people in danger with no regard. Welcome to our world judge. How do you like it so far? No you can't apply this line of logic to yourself and not to everyone. There is never a justification to place innocent people at risk. You say you believe this and would never do this. Your angry because it's you . However you will defend to the death the right to do this to the families of sex offenders. Well you might be defending something that set you up to be listed like this. When you do not stand up for the rights of all you give up yours in the process. How do you like it so far? IMO the sex offender registry is criminal in intent. You stand up for it so you have criminal intentions. You say criminals are out to get you when maybe we should take a look at the bigger picture here. You and everyone like you have said doing this is ok. It is necessary as if it saves just one child it is worth it. Well if we had only known who had a gun in their home we wouldn't have let our kids play there and they might still be alive. This is the same logic that got the registry started. If we had only known. Well suck it up. If this saves just one child it is all worth it. Oh and we will never know if it really did but can rest assured some how some place it did. Well at least we can say that and feel justified.

Please don't be afraid as this is only regulatory and regulatory is good. Judge your argument is making public information available with just a click of a mouse places law abiding people at risk. Isn't this the same thing the sex offender registry does? Place someone that is obeying the law at risk. Places their family at risk and you can't even justify that by saying well they did the crime as no they didn't.

deathklok said...

The way she starts frothing at the mouth during her rants kinda makes her look like a "Dangerously violent mental handicap". I think she is overdue for a civil commitment revue; based on the video evidence above. I would also venture to say she suffers from extreme paranoid delusions. Take away her guns and lock her up!

Loneranger said...

She tends to put on a show. I think show is the appropriate word as she is a TV personality. Yes she might be a real judge or was at one time but if you listen to these programs they have a disclaimer that says the litigants have agreed to dismiss there cases and be heard and so forth. the show agrees to pay whatever the ruling she delivers to the winner and also pay for the two to make the trip. this is TV folks. WE are listening to someone that portrays a judge on tv. Would you really listen to someone like say Doctor Kildare if you had cancer? I'm sure she was a real judge at one time but have a feeling she is not sitting on the bench presently and making alot more money doing this. I could be wrong however it wouldn't make sense to have a judge moon lite on a TV show.

kikipt said...

Unfortunately, there are still far too many judges who are exactly like that, and impact or destroy hundreds of lives, many of them innocent, in the process.