| Author | Message | ||
     Court |
Fortunatley . . the Constitution is crystal clear and unambiguous . . . .
I suspect it was written that clearly to avoid some of the silly arguments silly folks have attempted to use. I have the right by virtue of the constitution. No local government, hamlet, village committee or focus group has the power to deny me that RIGHT. | ||
| Gaesati |
Thanks for the reply, Aesquire, quite well put. I presumed that the right to be armed was dependent on citizenship and read the term "the people' as such. if I am wrong in that instance then surely neither the federal or state governments can abrogate an individual's right to be armed. Like so many things the term 'the people' hinges on definition and the intent of the framer. Further, to Rocket's argument I would suggest that violence in society is not a function of gun ownership but a question of local culture. That is in areas in which there is socio-economic disadvantage, low access to meaningful work, high levels of gambling, alcoholism, drug abuse, ill-health, poor participation in education and broken families will have high levels of violent crime. if guns are available, that crime will involve guns. The guns are not the cause or even a symptom. Violent crime is a symptom of a society in which people are losing their way(and to use a cliche lacking in love/charity). High levels of policing, and repressive gun laws only suppress the problem but do not cure it. Social development/support programs, education and access to work gradually resolve the problems in locales where things have fallen apart. I would venture to say that under the recent labor government in England crime rates fell without an increase in policing. During the Thatcher years crime increased, and I would be willing to bet that under the current regime's cuts in services that crime rates will increase again. I must confess that for a long time I accepted the argument about the relationship between guns and violent crime but now i am inclined to think gun ownership is a bit of an irrelevance when discussing violence and its causes. I suppose that a good example would be the comparison between crime rates in Juarez and El Paso. Juarez appears to have a very high rate of gun related violence whilst the Texan town has a high rate of gun ownership but little violence. Both towns are permeated by guns but the levels of poverty and hopelessness are far higher in Mexico. My answer to Rocket is that gun ownership is irrelevant to a discussion of violent crime. And I note from my reading that the second amendment is derived from an earlier English Bill so technically the English also have a right to arms. BUT english culture frowns on possession of guns so there is a tension between an archaic right and a popular desire. In the U.S. the culture overall still values the right to bear arms. | ||
| Gaesati |
Court, I think that you have the right as part of your humanity. The constitution guarantees it whilst you live in the U.S. | ||
| Hootowl |
The constitution does not grant those rights, it secures them against tyranny. According to the constitution, our inalienable rights are granted to us by our creator. By that reasoning, all of humanity is protected under our constitution, not just citizens. | ||
| Sifo |
Thanks for the reply, Aesquire, quite well put. I presumed that the right to be armed was dependent on citizenship and read the term "the people' as such. if I am wrong in that instance then surely neither the federal or state governments can abrogate an individual's right to be armed. Like so many things the term 'the people' hinges on definition and the intent of the framer. Our bill of rights applies to all in our country, citizens, non-citizens, and oddly sometimes even those here illegally. Would the supreme court see an illegal alien as having the right to bear arms? That would be interesting to see. There's no path for them to legally purchase arms, or to bring them in with them that I know of, so possession does raise certain questions. It's one of those things we may eventually have to figure out, given our current inclination to entice people to enter our country illegally. I would add this to Aesquire's answers... There is no requirement to be part of a militia to own guns. Militias of the period when that was written also weren't like we have today, where groups join together in peace time to train as a militia. They were simply volunteers who came forward when the need arose. They were normally expected to have their own guns and know how to use them. There was a lot of disagreement in the writing of our Constitution regarding the reliance of militia vs. a standing army. Those disagreements continue today, though many seem to not recognize the option of being reliant on militia groups to defend our country. I have to agree with you on the cause of violence. That's why I find it a bit silly to compare crime statistics of two very different countries and try to draw a clear conclusion about guns. I can point to countries where gun ownership is required to a great extent, but there is virtually no gun related crime. I find it silly to point that out and claim that gun ownership has prevented all of that crime though. I think their violent crime rate would remain low without their guns. They would also not have their means of national defense. There are also plenty of places where violent crime is high, despite gun ownership being banned. The realities of these places is that many will carry a gun despite it being illegal. All that has been done is to criminalize those who wish to defend themselves from violent crime. Many of these who ignore the law will be rich/powerful enough to deal with the legal consequences should the need arise. Joe average on the street tends to have poorer options. Great list of questions BTW. | ||
| Court |
New York City is granting ILLEGAL aliens no only ID (presumably to confer voting ability) bit a "Culture Card" that conveys to them 1-year of free admission to all museums, zoos, parks and city owned arts venues. Let me see if I can explain . . . . If you are a tourist visiting from Europe . . you pay through the nose for this stuff (I just bought Lincoln Center Gala ballet tickets for New Year Eve . . at $2,500 EACH) But . . . if you pay a frickin' mule to smuggle your illegal ass in . . . hey, it's on the house. Having a communist for a mayor sucks but it sure makes life interesting. His Chief of Staff is living with an interesting guy. His wife is an interesting person in her own right and . . . get this . . . attends high level NYPD (arguably one of the world's most sophisticated anti-terrorism organizations) briefings. I love this town. And . . . you wonder why our gun laws are so screwed up? It was . . by the way . . a great list of questions . . the answers to which . . . clearly illustrate how simply cut and dried the answers should be. (Message edited by court on October 01, 2014) | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, the 2nd amendment is the only one which the founders felt the need to add "shall not be infringed". The language of the entire amendment is incredibly simple for legal language... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Hard to imagine how a single sentence that includes the phrase "shall not be infringed" can possibly be subject to so much debate regarding it's meaning.  | ||
| Aesquire |
All citizens are considered part of the Militia, potentially. Even in colonial days not everyone was able or willing to drill ( reloading your musket quickly takes practice and doing it together makes it safer and gives you the ability to do volley fire ) some were crippled some had to do vital jobs and some didn't care. Still. All ( at the time adult male ) citizens had the rights. Period. Today women are equal. Equal rights I mean. Women are clearly superior. | ||
| Hootowl |
Or so many laws infringing upon it. | ||
| Sifo |
All citizens are considered part of the Militia, potentially. True, but to my understanding that potential was always on a voluntary basis. Am I wrong about that? | ||
| Hootowl |
Selective service requires every male over the age of 18 to register for the draft. So, no, not voluntary, not always. | ||
| Sifo |
Of course selective service registration is for an army, not militia. | ||
| Aesquire |
Voluntary. You don't want someone who doesn't want to be there when you are stacking sandbags against the flood, cutting brush for the firebrand or holding the bridge against the British. Or drug gang. As to the illegal immigrants? Are they going to help or hurt? We have a long tradition of accepting help as well as giving it. Americans are not a race. We are the freedom loving people. We are from everywhere. All races all creeds. We are responsibility for actions and choice. Choice is the key. Individuals have choice. Collectives have masters. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Sean you're wearing out your welcome and breaking your word to me, again. No actually I'm not. I'm doing something you as an American are proud of. I'm defending my country and my beliefs against a constant barrage of abuse from several here, yet I do little to complain, and I bite my tongue when insulted. Not all of the time, but most of it. But the far greater insults are coming my way, not going yours. It's always seemed odd that some prefer to turn discussion to the person rather than the issue. Oh well, you've got two topics to go at now. Read back several pages. You can see where the person known as Rocket has had the topic turned into a topic about him. Funny that. I get nauseous reading posts of that nature. Just completely putrified garbage. Put your foot down then and stop it. Start with Paddy who you want to meet for drinks and high fives, despite him being the main perpetrator of this putrefied garbage. I appreciate hard nosed analysis. The analysis of history is clear and exactly as Patrick stated. As if any more proof were necessary. You manage to include it right there in the same bloody post. High fives Paddy darling xxx Take a break. Stick to real life and motorcycles. Why? No one talks for long enough about motorcycles around here. And to be honest with you Blake, I thought Ukraine and Ferguson were real life. Thanks for the warning anyways. What you should be doing is thanking me for complying with your wishes. Hell, Paddy there has just asked me to call him a jew. This after he called me a tosser and a male pig. I feel so terribly upset I've had to call my mummy to come tuck me up in beebo's  Joking aside, as you wish. Peace out  Rocket in England | ||
| Aesquire |
To be fair I did call Rocket a tosser. And I did pick a slang word not used here. The pig male bit is all of us with the tender bits on the outside. I apologize for not making that clear. Women who've been raped can have issues with all men and that can trash relationships for years or life. Yes I speak from bitter experience. I probably hear more stories on the subject than most guys outside rape crisis & therapy jobs. Probably because learning to fight helps some as much as years of therapy. I always dread that conversation. At the same time the tears and outbursts signal an important part of healing. Yeah I can usually see it coming after decades and have learned to just hang on through the storm. I apologize for calling you a tosser. You pushed a button. We should probably have a separate conversation about domestic abuse. It has no place here. Nor does bashing The Empire the sun never sets on. And I've done more than my share of that. I won't apologize for MY ancestors raiding your ancestors lands..... after all, I'm named after an escaped English slave taken by reavers. I am aware that history is a factor in the genocide that followed. The Irish do have a reputation as a fractious lot. We did invent Whisky though so we've got that going for us. Btw I didn't tell you to call me a Jew. I told you to try and insult me by doing so. My opinion on your stated opinion on Hamas is you believe the worst hate manipulating liars and your opinions are nearly pure manure. Your opinion on Premier Obama and his bungling of the Ukraine...... could be close to true. I still think it likely that the O is really Putin's minion and his posing and bluster is written in the Kremlin. Then again I am aware Obama has received nearly a billion in bribes from such lovely places as Syria, Qatar, the Saudis, and....Russia. if you told me he was a product of KGB school I'd want references. ...... but I could easily believe you. | ||
| Akbuell |
Heavy sigh. This thread has wandered off into a wilderness far removed from its birth. If I may, Rocket has opinions, and tends to express them in a forceful manner. So be it. To return to the issue, a citizen and a police officer ( a citizen with different, specialized training, and a FEW different legal exceptions) were involved in a situation. When it ended, the citizen was dead, and the officer was injured. Rocket, in my opinion, feels the officer HAS committed murder, and should be held responsible, UNLESS and UNTIL proven innocent. Other here, including me, feel that the officer HAS NOT committed a crime, UNLESS and UNTIL proven responsible. Two entirely different roads, from truly opposite points on the compass, that BOTH lead to the same destination. Dave | ||
| Blake |
Thank you Sean, and you too Patrick always the class act. Surely not attributable to you yourself. Must have been good upbringing. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Thanks Dave. Just to clarify. Several days ago S21125r hit the nail on the head for me. Rocket - Let me try to offer some perspective. I don’t think the UK way is wrong any more than the US way is right. It’s just a different method of enforcing a social contract. The key is that the audience needs to know what the ground rules are. It’s under the assumption that it went down the way we think it did that I make the following points… You see this as two or more points of engagement. That’s not the way it works here. Once a LEO engages a bad guy he pursues until the bad guy is apprehended. It’s well understood, accepted and expected as a social norm here. LEOs also have a well-documented Force Continuum that dictates what response they may use for various levels of threat. They can drop into the threat/response matrix at any point to match the conditions. (i.e. You wouldn’t ask for a perp’s ID if he’s pointing a gun at you.) This too is a socially accepted and understood ground rule. So if it went down as indicated then Brown knew exactly what the consequences were for his actions before he even threw the first punch because he knew what the ground rules were. He could have had his day in court under the presumption of innocence (yet another well understood social norm…) but he chose the prize behind door #2. Allegedly. It is within the "social contract and accepted norm" I understood why I had no argument in defending the life of Brown. Simplified, the rules is the rules, and if you know them as all do as explained.......no argument. Rocket in England | ||
| Blake |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/ 2014/10/01/grand-jury-hearing-ferguson-shooting-is -being-investigated-for-misconduct/ So why would the prosecutor warrant dismissal from the case due to a bad juror? | ||
| Reepicheep |
I dunno... perhaps it is some kind of a "safety" to keep prosecutors from strategic leaks during grand jury activity? Just set the ground rules up front... any leak means a new prosecutor, make sure you don't leak. Not fair to the prosecutor, but perhaps the only mechanism to stop otherwise untraceable and unstoppable leaks. We can thank people like Eric Holder for that, who are willing to weaponize the department of justice for political ends, and violate the rule of law and sacrifice all integrity when they think it is a necessary means to an end. | ||
| Hootowl |
But the leak didn't come from the prosecutor's office, it came from a juror. Replacing the prosecutor would be like replacing your windshield because your brake fluid is dirty. | ||
| S21125r |
Its the judge's "house" and he/she should be communicating and enforcing the rules. The prosecutor is just a guest... | ||
| Reepicheep |
True. If you can trace the leak to where it came from, there ought to be charges on that person, not some idiot zero tolerance replacement for critical thought. | ||
| Blake |
The demand for removal of the prosecutor is coming from the "cop is a murderer" activists. It's entirely unjustified. They want their special prosecutor. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Sadly, that makes a lot more sense. Screw justice. Just keep trying for another roll of the dice until you get the number you want.  | ||
| Kenm123t |
Reep this is why we need to take Jury duty very serious | ||
| Blake |
The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/ferguson-case -officer-is-said-to-cite-struggle.html | ||
| D_adams |
So their latest chant is "hands up, don't shoot" right? http://teespring.com/hashtagpantsup#pid=2&cid=2397 &sid=front  | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
With a bullet in his arm it's hard to believe Brown would momentarily leave to walk away then turn back toward officer Wilson now exit from his vehicle supposedly with gun pointed. If as I now understand, the known and accepted protocol, Brown was either high or incredibly thick. It's hard to imagine stupid. With a bullet in his arm already he walked into certain death. Rocket in England | ||
| Court |
>>>With a bullet in his arm it's hard to believe Brown would momentarily leave to walk away then turn back toward officer Wilson now exit from his vehicle supposedly with gun pointed. It's EASY to believe. Based on my personal experience . . . . I doubt Brown even knew he was shot. The human body does amazing things during the "fight or flight" phase in a confrontation or when subject to trauma. This COULD (I do not know and base this only on the toxicology reports . . )have been exacerbated by Brown being under the influence of drugs. The blood in the car and on the gun pretty well vindicates the Officer. It appears, again my personal opinion, that the only thing the Office did was to fail to perceive Brown as a threat early enough and allowed him to get too close. |
