Which is easier for the state murdering someone or framing them and murdering someone. Framing is for when they want to discredit the persons reputation. This allows the questioning or outright disregard for anything the person may have already said or may have arranged to be released later.
Murder is to silence.
As well consider that there is already plenty of crimes they can frame a person for that lead to a death penalty.
While I do recognize this kind of rhetoric is really just a tool for division, and as such it is hardly worth serious consideration, human traffickers and drug dealers literally destroy lives for generations of people. Most of them not even the victims they have harmed. The punishment should be harsh.
When the government offers candy, it is usually laced with poison. ...If they want to stop drugs, tell them to stop importing it with their CIA goons.>
I cannot disagree with the truth of these statements.
They seek to get us to agree to this so they can expand Genocide in the future.>
Judicial based genocide where large groups of citizens are declared human traffickers and drug dealers? I really think that is a very inefficient method to use as well why is it any better than the methods that are used today?
Gov has no right to kill.>
No but the do have the right to execute justice and sometimes a person is deserving of death. When these 2 paths become concurrent then the Government can levee an execution. IMhO.
Which is easier for the state murdering someone or framing them and murdering someone. Framing is for when they want to discredit the persons reputation. This allows the questioning or outright disregard for anything the person may have already said or may have arranged to be released later.
Murder is to silence.
As well consider that there is already plenty of crimes they can frame a person for that lead to a death penalty.
While I do recognize this kind of rhetoric is really just a tool for division, and as such it is hardly worth serious consideration, human traffickers and drug dealers literally destroy lives for generations of people. Most of them not even the victims they have harmed. The punishment should be harsh.
When the government offers candy, it is usually laced with poison. They seek to get us to agree to this so they can expand Genocide in the future.
Gov has no right to kill. If they want to stop drugs, tell them to stop importing it with their CIA goons.
I cannot disagree with the truth of these statements.
Judicial based genocide where large groups of citizens are declared human traffickers and drug dealers? I really think that is a very inefficient method to use as well why is it any better than the methods that are used today?
No but the do have the right to execute justice and sometimes a person is deserving of death. When these 2 paths become concurrent then the Government can levee an execution. IMhO.
Here's the trap:
Convince you to allow Gov to kill Citizens (but only the ones who deal drugs or trafffic humans)
Dumb sheep say yes (hopefully not)
In the future, expand killing Citizens who do other stuff like steal, ect.... They won't even ask at this point. They will just do it.
Eventually kill anyone who speaks out against the Government.
THIS IS A TRAP FOLKS
So capital punishment has been in place since the founding of the country can you give an example of where it was expanded?
I am not asking about other countries. I am asking about the US government specifically.