Recommended Posts
jdhill 0
QuoteHowever, it needs to include rehab or you just introduce ex-cons back into the populace with almost no options other than more crime.
I thought we were talking about lifers... no reintroduction to society, no need for rehab...
You still didn't answer which parts of my suggested treatment were abuse... maybe its because none of them are, and that people who have commited no crimes live free lives with less.
J
Quote
You still didn't answer which parts of my suggested treatment were abuse... maybe its because none of them are, and that people who have commited no crimes live free lives with less.
J
eh? I agreed with you as long as civil rights were not violated. Maybe you were thinking about another reply to your post?
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
jdhill 0
QuoteI wonder how many defenders of the 2nd Amendment feel it is ok to interpret this one however they want?
What defines "Cruel and Unusual" is quite subjective... at the time those words were written executions would not be considered such, and 16 and 17 year olds were on the back side of middle aged... It is our society's standards that should drive the modern definition, not ones from overseas...
The court has taken away the ability to look at each individual case to see if the murderer in question was mature or not... instead they have said, perhaps not intentionally, that no one is mature until the age of 18.
There are not words in the operative portion of the 2nd Amendment that are so open to subjective interpretation... "the people" would be the closest phrase, but to go down that road endangers the meaning of several other Amendments.
J
jdhill 0
QuoteMaybe you were thinking about another reply to your post?
My bad... I was thinking of someone else's post...
J
Ron 10
QuoteCan't solve both issues at once. Might as well complete the one that is clearly black and white so you can better concentrate on the grey area.
See for me, given the choice of killing murderers that are found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, or killing unborn innocent children.
I'll go with killing the bad guys.
Quoteat the time those words were written.....What defines "Cruel and Unusual" is quite subjective
These are two of the major excuses gun control indivduals use for the 2nd. By using it towards the 8th you are only giving them credibility.
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
QuoteQuoteCan't solve both issues at once. Might as well complete the one that is clearly black and white so you can better concentrate on the grey area.
See for me, given the choice of killing murderers that are found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, or killing unborn innocent children.
I'll go with killing the bad guys.
But as it turns out there is plenty of corruption and some of those on death row don't deserve to be there. You are ok with them getting the needle as well?
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
jdhill 0
QuoteThat is one of the major excuses gun control indivduals use for the 2nd. By using it towards the 8th you are only giving them credibility.
No, I am not saying the 8th Amendment does not have relevance today because times are different... which is what gun grabbers tend to say...
I am saying that what is considered creul and unusal, a very subjective phrase, may change as society does... but it should be the people who define it, not the courts.
Quotecru·el ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krl)
adj. cru·el·er, or cru·el·ler cru·el·est or cru·el·lest
Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.
Causing suffering; painful.
un·u·su·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-yzh-l)
adj.
Not usual, common, or ordinary.
To use that arguement against the 2nd would be to say that "Arms" was a subjective term, where it clearly is not.
Quotearm2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n.
A weapon, especially a firearm
J
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuoteI wonder how many defenders of the 2nd Amendment feel it is ok to interpret this one however they want?
What defines "Cruel and Unusual" is quite subjective... at the time those words were written executions would not be considered such, and 16 and 17 year olds were on the back side of middle aged... It is our society's standards that should drive the modern definition, not ones from overseas...
The court has taken away the ability to look at each individual case to see if the murderer in question was mature or not... instead they have said, perhaps not intentionally, that no one is mature until the age of 18.
J
The law already makes that statement, with respect to a number of activities. Indeed, the law considers a child not mature enough to consume alcohol until 21. Individual cases are NOT considered on their merits.
Anyhow, the SCUS trumps all your arguments, and mine too.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Ron 10
Quote
But as it turns out there is plenty of corruption and some of those on death row don't deserve to be there. You are ok with them getting the needle as well?
Here read what I wrote again...If you have further questions ask.
QuoteSee for me, given the choice of killing murderers that are found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, or killing unborn innocent children.
I'll go with killing the bad guys.
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuote
But as it turns out there is plenty of corruption and some of those on death row don't deserve to be there. You are ok with them getting the needle as well?
Here read what I wrote again...If you have further questions ask.QuoteSee for me, given the choice of killing murderers that are found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, or killing unborn innocent children.
I'll go with killing the bad guys.
Well, define "shadow of a doubt" and a discussion can begin. Ever study quantum mechanics?
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,119
>was a subjective term, where it clearly is not.
I think the parallel argument would be that the second amendment should be read in its entirety and taken literally; that is, that the second amendment applies to arming militias.
rehmwa 2
QuoteBut as it turns out there is plenty of corruption and some of those on death row don't deserve to be there
"plenty of", "some of those" - well, I'm convinced.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteQuoteBut as it turns out there is plenty of corruption and some of those on death row don't deserve to be there
"plenty of", "some of those" - well, I'm convinced.
It was enough to convince our former Gov to change his mind after a few innocent people were released from death row. So much for shadow of a doubt.
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
jdhill 0
QuoteIndeed, the law considers a child not mature enough to consume alcohol until 21.
But one is an adult at the age of 18 by all other laws but the drinking age... you can vote (an activity requiring more maturity than drinking), sign contracts, enlist in the military, register for the selective service, etc...
21 is actually not the federal law, it was a threat by the DoT to withhold highway funds that forced the majority of the states to adopt it... you can drink at 18 on some Military bases (Ft. Huachua for example)... but that is another discussion.
And now, not by law, but by court decision, maturity starts at 18...
But maybe girls who are younger than 18 are mature enough to get abortions without their parents knowing

J
rehmwa 2
Was he one of the corrupt ones or a good guy? - I don't have a program here.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
jdhill 0
QuoteI think the parallel argument would be that the second amendment should be read in its entirety and taken literally; that is, that the second amendment applies to arming militias.
I disagree... I can read the 2nd in its entirety and see that the second clause is not dependent on the first... it really is basic English...
If you look at the terms used, and define them, you have one amendment, the 2nd, that has a fairly objective term, Arms, and another, the 8th, with very subjective ones, Creul and Unusual...
Put 10 people in a room and ask them to write down what an Arm is... you will get some reasonable level of continuity in their answers... Put 10 people in a room and ask them to write down what Cruel and Unusal is, you will not get the same...
J
Quote[reply}It was enough to convince our former Gov to change his mind after a few innocent people were released from death row. So much for shadow of a doubt.
Was he one of the corrupt ones or a good guy? - I don't have a program here.
Honestly? Yes to both. You may know him from the 9/11 commision on the Repub side.
He was a possible bad guy in "CDL for brides" scandal, but was rumored to get nominated for a Nobel due to his change of stance on the death penalty.
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
Ron 10
QuoteWell, define "shadow of a doubt" and a discussion can begin
DNA evidence, eyewitness's, them admitting it.
QuoteEver study quantum mechanics?
No, but I got "A's" on my Algebra I and II classes
Yes, it is about punishment and removing the luxury of a free life for your crimes. However, it needs to include rehab or you just introduce ex-cons back into the populace with almost no options other than more crime.
I know some people that beat the system. They did their time and changed their lives. These people are stronger parts to the community than alot of other people I know.
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites