Robviously Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I think the Constitution should be used less as a shield for the guilty And more of a sword for their innocent victims. -Sam Waterston It wasn't written to be either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/48283653#48283653 live feed of court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm glad they didn't let him cut his hair. What a nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm glad they didn't let him cut his hair. What a nut. I'm hoping he's not a nut. I hope they rule him competent for trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm hoping he's not a nut. I hope they rule him competent for trial. I wonder how much difference there really is between going to trial or spending the rest of his life in a nut house. This guy will never see the light of day again either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm hoping he's not a nut. I hope they rule him competent for trial. I think they will. You can tell by the look on his face that he understands what's going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrannustyrannus Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Can an owner of an AR15 with a 100 round magazine please give me a reasonable argument why they should be Constitutionally guaranteed the right to own it? I have no problem with hunting rifles for taking down a deer, by why do you need a gun that can kill 100 people? I just want to hear a reasonable argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm hoping he's not a nut. I hope they rule him competent for trial. nut <> unfit for trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 nut <> unfit for trial. Exactly, because this guy most assuredly is a nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Can an owner of an AR15 with a 100 round magazine please give me a reasonable argument why they should be Constitutionally guaranteed the right to own it? I have no problem with hunting rifles for taking down a deer, by why do you need a gun that can kill 100 people? I just want to hear a reasonable argument. The second amendment is the only right that assures that all the other rights will be protected. Without it, the constitution is just some ideas on paper. A well armed citizenry is the final check on the government as a whole. Without weapons, the Libyans can't rise up against their government. We need the right, should our government every become tyrannical to the point of needing replacement. That crazy people will take advantage of the right and harm others is not a valid reason to deny the right. Drug traffickers take advantage of the 4th amendment. There would be much less drug crime without the 4th amendment. I still don't want my 4th amendment taken away because if facilitates the crimes of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 The second amendment is the only right that assures that all the other rights will be protected. Without it, the constitution is just some ideas on paper. A well armed citizenry is the final check on the government as a whole. Without weapons, the Libyans can't rise up against their government. We need the right, should our government every become tyrannical to the point of needing replacement. That crazy people will take advantage of the right and harm others is not a valid reason to deny the right. Drug traffickers take advantage of the 4th amendment. There would be much less drug crime without the 4th amendment. I still don't want my 4th amendment taken away because if facilitates the crimes of others. You really, honestly, believe this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 You really, honestly, believe this? No, not at all, but it is a reasonable argument in favor of a strong 2nd amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 No, not at all, but it is a reasonable argument in favor of a strong 2nd amendment. It's a reasonable argument for proper utilization of the 2nd Amendment. But the problem is, we use it to justify having guns and that's where it stops. True exercise of the 2nd Amendment would result in well organized and properly trained state and local militias, where people who own and use firearms would also be trained in true combat tactics, safety, and fitness. The 2nd Amendment is a joke as currently used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 It's a reasonable argument for proper utilization of the 2nd Amendment. But the problem is, we use it to justify having guns and that's where it stops. True exercise of the 2nd Amendment would result in well organized and properly trained state and local militias, where people who own and use firearms would also be trained in true combat tactics, safety, and fitness. The 2nd Amendment is a joke as currently used. Completely agreed. I was trying to directly address the singular question of a reasonable argument in favor of allowing individuals to own semi-automatic weapons designed explicitly for combat. There is a reasonable affirmative argument for that case, as well as a reasonable negative argument against abridging that right. The Gun Control debate in this country is at a stand still because significant parties on either side of the issue refuse to accept that the other side might be reasonable. When everyone thinks everyone else is batty, the discussion on how to improve the results can not even begin. My second amendment argument usually goes like this: Me: As an Aerospace Engineer with significant manufacturing background, I am fully capable of designing and building a missile with gps targeting and the ability to put a decent sized crater at the location of my choice, should I be allowed to have such arms, given that I have made no threats to anyone and will be using it for defensive purposes only? Remember, you have to go by my word, because you are against the registration and background check requirements, so you just have to trust that I am not involved in foreign terrorism. NRA Lifetime Member: No, you can't just carry around weapons of mass destruction. Me: good, then we agree that the personal right to bear arms has some limitation, now we can discuss where to put that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 It's a reasonable argument for proper utilization of the 2nd Amendment. But the problem is, we use it to justify having guns and that's where it stops. True exercise of the 2nd Amendment would result in well organized and properly trained state and local militias, where people who own and use firearms would also be trained in true combat tactics, safety, and fitness. The 2nd Amendment is a joke as currently used. Grab your muskets and muster the troops! And don't forget your powder horns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Completely agreed. I was trying to directly address the singular question of a reasonable argument in favor of allowing individuals to own semi-automatic weapons designed explicitly for combat. There is a reasonable affirmative argument for that case, as well as a reasonable negative argument against abridging that right. The Gun Control debate in this country is at a stand still because significant parties on either side of the issue refuse to accept that the other side might be reasonable. When everyone thinks everyone else is batty, the discussion on how to improve the results can not even begin. My second amendment argument usually goes like this: Me: As an Aerospace Engineer with significant manufacturing background, I am fully capable of designing and building a missile with gps targeting and the ability to put a decent sized crater at the location of my choice, should I be allowed to have such arms, given that I have made no threats to anyone and will be using it for defensive purposes only? Remember, you have to go by my word, because you are against the registration and background check requirements, so you just have to trust that I am not involved in foreign terrorism. NRA Lifetime Member: No, you can't just carry around weapons of mass destruction. Me: good, then we agree that the personal right to bear arms has some limitation, now we can discuss where to put that line. Right on. Grab your muskets and muster the troops! And don't forget your powder horns. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Hey.....anybody remember Hurricane Katrina? Now imagine that on a nationwide level. That was a good lesson as what to expect from all parties involved in a chaotic sitiuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Hey.....anybody remember Hurricane Katrina? Now imagine that on a nationwide level. That was a good lesson as what to expect from all parties involved in a chaotic sitiuation. Good point. In addition to muskets and powder horns, remind the troops to bring their raincoats and galoshes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Grab your muskets and muster the troops! And don't forget your powder horns. It was good enough for the writers of the Bill of Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Not so sure this guy is a nut. He apparently planned this for months. Premeditated,forthought, yada yada yada. Certainly looks nutty in court. Sees himself as a real joker. Does Colorado have capital punishment ? In this instance lets hope so. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Not so sure this guy is a nut. He apparently planned this for months. Premeditated,forthought, yada yada yada. Certainly looks nutty in court. Sees himself as a real joker. Does Colorado have capital punishment ? In this instance lets hope so. IMO. Yes, Colorado has the death penalty. And premeditated does not mean he's not nuts. It just means he planned it. There has to be some level of sociopath present to even plan it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Yes, Colorado has the death penalty. And premeditated does not mean he's not nuts. It just means he planned it. There has to be some level of sociopath present to even plan it. Yes he is clearly mentally ill, but crazy =/= innocent not guilty by reason of insanity mental defect or disease. For that legal hurdle he his lawyers have to prove that he did not know what he was doing was wrong. The fact that he rigged his house to blow up the cops indicates that he knew what he was doing was wrong. The match.com post, if it is his, is even more damning. I'm guessing this trial ends in a failed mental illness defense and the death penalty, unless he pleads out to life without parole. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Yes he is clearly mentally ill, but crazy =/= innocent not guilty by reason of insanity mental defect or disease. For that legal hurdle he his lawyers have to prove that he did not know what he was doing was wrong. The fact that he rigged his house to blow up the cops indicates that he knew what he was doing was wrong. The match.com post, if it is his, is even more damning. I'm guessing this trial ends in a failed mental illness defense and the death penalty, unless he pleads out to life without parole. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer But then again, a life sentence in general population at any prison is a more gruesome version of the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 But then again, a life sentence in general population at any prison is a more gruesome version of the death penalty. A freshman public defender should be able to get him in solitary confinement to protect him while in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 A freshman public defender should be able to get him in solitary confinement to protect him while in prison. They'll find a way to get to him. They always do. More than a few guards will be willing to look the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.