normiss 886 #201 February 5, 2013 It should be illegal to steal a truck by means of murder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #202 February 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteThat's like saying because I've had a few years of managerial legal training, I could be an attorney. No. The example of Ron Paul, M.D. is more like saying that a particular lawyer - after 3 years of law school, including a summer internship in the DA's office, and spending decades of practicing mostly family and commercial law, including decades of client contact and counseling, all the while being continuously exposed to other lawyers and law journal articles on all aspects of the law ..... would still have far more understanding of a criminal defendant's constitutional rights, and sensible-versus-stupid trial strategy, than a social worker who counsels clients at a battered women's crisis center, despite the fact that he doesn't specialize in criminal defense law. Ron Paul finished medical school in 1961, and did his time in the Air Force until 1968. He then worked as OBN/GYN until the end of the 70s when he turned to a legislative career. In contrast, the modern understanding of PTSD did not emerge until the 70s, and was not even formally recognized until 1980. So there's little reason to believe that he received much insight into it during his schooling or service in the Air Force. (particularly given his penchant for Ayn Rand) If I were a tenant in San Francisco having trouble with a landlord, given a choice of consulting with a constitutional scholar like Barack Obama (pre 2009, before his beliefs were corrupted by the White House), or a non degree adviser at the SF Rent Board, I'm taking the second guy. Not the guy who might have studied Chicago law decades ago out of personal interest when he was still renting Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bakerjan 0 #203 February 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Famed-Navy-SEAL-Chris-Kyle-shot-killed-in-N-Texas-189539281.html At a gun range in Texas, a Navy SEAL (one of the best there ever was), shot by a mentally unstable person with a gun. And the shooter is able to walk away. So, yeah, all the Walter Mitty folks out there, please tell me again how being armed stops this from happening? Anyone can get shot by some one in the back, gun or no gun, it makes no difference if some one already has drawn on you. That fails to address the 2nd part of the fact scenario: that the shooter, despite (presumably) all those armed people on site, was able to walk away. You Americans seem to like shouting so loud so you can be heard over the gunfire, but Andy 908 you should do a little more reasearch before you start shouting. From the story: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed/ Kyle, Littlefield and Routh were three such visitors, arriving together around 3:15 p.m. (4:15 p.m. ET) Saturday and proceeding to a shooting range within the resort's 11,000 acres, Bryant told reporters Sunday. The range is in a "very remote part" of the sprawling complex, Upshaw explained. "So there wasn't anybody anywhere close to that," he said, explaining there are no known witnesses. The first sign something was wrong came when a hunting guide tied to the facility found 38-year-old Kyle and 35-year-old Littlefield -- both unconscious -- around 5 p.m., Bryant said. Jan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #204 February 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Famed-Navy-SEAL-Chris-Kyle-shot-killed-in-N-Texas-189539281.html At a gun range in Texas, a Navy SEAL (one of the best there ever was), shot by a mentally unstable person with a gun. And the shooter is able to walk away. So, yeah, all the Walter Mitty folks out there, please tell me again how being armed stops this from happening? Anyone can get shot by some one in the back, gun or no gun, it makes no difference if some one already has drawn on you. That fails to address the 2nd part of the fact scenario: that the shooter, despite (presumably) all those armed people on site, was able to walk away. You Americans seem to like shouting so loud so you can be heard over the gunfire, but Andy 908 you should do a little more reasearch before you start shouting. From the story: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed/ Kyle, Littlefield and Routh were three such visitors, arriving together around 3:15 p.m. (4:15 p.m. ET) Saturday and proceeding to a shooting range within the resort's 11,000 acres, Bryant told reporters Sunday. The range is in a "very remote part" of the sprawling complex, Upshaw explained. "So there wasn't anybody anywhere close to that," he said, explaining there are no known witnesses. The first sign something was wrong came when a hunting guide tied to the facility found 38-year-old Kyle and 35-year-old Littlefield -- both unconscious -- around 5 p.m., Bryant said. Jan Hmmm Yet another jerked knee in need of repair"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #205 February 5, 2013 Say what... he wasn't shot around numerous armed good guys?!? That would make the whole contrived premise of this thread pretty fucking stupid. Now we are just left with the fact that anyone can be caught off guard... armed or unarmed. Yawn, no shit Sherlock."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #206 February 5, 2013 QuoteSay what... he wasn't shot around numerous armed good guys?!? That would make the whole contrived premise pretty fucking stupid. I was postint to Andy's knee jerk reaction to this story"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #207 February 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat's like saying because I've had a few years of managerial legal training, I could be an attorney. No. The example of Ron Paul, M.D. is more like saying that a particular lawyer - after 3 years of law school, including a summer internship in the DA's office, and spending decades of practicing mostly family and commercial law, including decades of client contact and counseling, all the while being continuously exposed to other lawyers and law journal articles on all aspects of the law ..... would still have far more understanding of a criminal defendant's constitutional rights, and sensible-versus-stupid trial strategy, than a social worker who counsels clients at a battered women's crisis center, despite the fact that he doesn't specialize in criminal defense law. Ron Paul finished medical school in 1961, and did his time in the Air Force until 1968. He then worked as OBN/GYN until the end of the 70s when he turned to a legislative career. In contrast, the modern understanding of PTSD did not emerge until the 70s, and was not even formally recognized until 1980. So there's little reason to believe that he received much insight into it during his schooling or service in the Air Force. (particularly given his penchant for Ayn Rand) If I were a tenant in San Francisco having trouble with a landlord, given a choice of consulting with a constitutional scholar like Barack Obama (pre 2009, before his beliefs were corrupted by the White House), or a non degree adviser at the SF Rent Board, I'm taking the second guy. Not the guy who might have studied Chicago law decades ago out of personal interest when he was still renting At some point I have to simply say that you guys are just plain wrong on this. You're twiddling and twisting and massaging minutiae and endless analogies at the expense of the overall. I stand by my posts; and now I'm moving on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #208 February 5, 2013 QuoteAndy 908 you should do a little more reasearch before you start shouting. ...showing that you know absolutely nothing about me, or my process. But I really don't care, as this ain't about me. And it's a lower-case "o". Jeez. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #209 February 5, 2013 As it is with everyone You have the right to be wrong ...and stand by it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #210 February 5, 2013 Quote>Ah. I'm a DUI driver. ODD, since I'm not. ?? Your freedoms are restricted because of other idiots who drive drunk and kill people. You would likely have no problem at all driving your car a few blocks home with a BAC of .10. But you do not have the freedom to do that because other people have done something similar and killed people. Thus, your freedom is restricted - even though you yourself would not drive around killing people while you were drunk - because of what other people do. If, however, you say that since you will never consider driving drunk, such laws do not affect you at all, that's fine. By the same reasoning, though, people who will never own guns are not affected by restrictions on them. The DUI argument doesn't work with guns. Why should my right to keep and own a gun be restricted for any reason when it is my right under the Constitution to have that right. Any law infringing that right is against the Constitution. Just just because we a a couple of nutjobs out shooting up the place doesn't mean rights should be restricted. If they want to change the laws then they need amendment to the Constitution abolishing the 2nd, not end rights via state taxes, fees, restrictions, goofy training classes etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,144 #211 February 5, 2013 QuoteQuote>Ah. I'm a DUI driver. ODD, since I'm not. ?? Your freedoms are restricted because of other idiots who drive drunk and kill people. You would likely have no problem at all driving your car a few blocks home with a BAC of .10. But you do not have the freedom to do that because other people have done something similar and killed people. Thus, your freedom is restricted - even though you yourself would not drive around killing people while you were drunk - because of what other people do. If, however, you say that since you will never consider driving drunk, such laws do not affect you at all, that's fine. By the same reasoning, though, people who will never own guns are not affected by restrictions on them. The DUI argument doesn't work with guns. Why should my right to keep and own a gun be restricted for any reason when it is my right under the Constitution to have that right. Any law infringing that right is against the Constitution. Just just because we a a couple of nutjobs out shooting up the place doesn't mean rights should be restricted. If they want to change the laws then they need amendment to the Constitution abolishing the 2nd, not end rights via state taxes, fees, restrictions, goofy training classes etc. So tell us precisely which proposals plan to confiscate your guns. All I'm hearing is a lot of whining about something that hasn't happened and is not going to happen.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #212 February 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote>Ah. I'm a DUI driver. ODD, since I'm not. ?? Your freedoms are restricted because of other idiots who drive drunk and kill people. You would likely have no problem at all driving your car a few blocks home with a BAC of .10. But you do not have the freedom to do that because other people have done something similar and killed people. Thus, your freedom is restricted - even though you yourself would not drive around killing people while you were drunk - because of what other people do. If, however, you say that since you will never consider driving drunk, such laws do not affect you at all, that's fine. By the same reasoning, though, people who will never own guns are not affected by restrictions on them. The DUI argument doesn't work with guns. Why should my right to keep and own a gun be restricted for any reason when it is my right under the Constitution to have that right. Any law infringing that right is against the Constitution. Just just because we a a couple of nutjobs out shooting up the place doesn't mean rights should be restricted. If they want to change the laws then they need amendment to the Constitution abolishing the 2nd, not end rights via state taxes, fees, restrictions, goofy training classes etc. So tell us precisely which proposals plan to confiscate your guns. All I'm hearing is a lot of whining about something that hasn't happened and is not going to happen. Why would you bring up confiscation when it was never mentioned. You do agree there are "restrictions to rights" being proposed. That doesn't mean necessarily confiscation. You guys read too much into things and you over analyze. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,100 #213 February 5, 2013 >Why should my right to keep and own a gun be restricted for any reason when it is my >right under the Constitution to have that right. Any law infringing that right is against >the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagrees. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #214 February 5, 2013 The Supreme Court also thinks that a corporation is a person protected by the constitution, and back in the day they ruled that Dred Scott was personal property with no right to sue in Federal court. In other words, they don't always get it right."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #215 February 5, 2013 Why? You didn't get it the first 11ty-hundred times you were told.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #216 February 5, 2013 Quote>Why should my right to keep and own a gun be restricted for any reason when it is my >right under the Constitution to have that right. Any law infringing that right is against >the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagrees. Yep, they allow things under Amendment X, where they shouldn't have as rights are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. State or Fed should not infringe upon any rights contained in the Second Amendment. But they do. Some states ban, certain firearms and "arms" is not specifically defined. So, Since the Feds and the States don't abide by the Constitution including Amendment IV at the airport, and XIV laws again depriving of property (firearm as property) then should not THE PEOPLE petition the government? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,144 #217 February 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Ah. I'm a DUI driver. ODD, since I'm not. ?? Your freedoms are restricted because of other idiots who drive drunk and kill people. You would likely have no problem at all driving your car a few blocks home with a BAC of .10. But you do not have the freedom to do that because other people have done something similar and killed people. Thus, your freedom is restricted - even though you yourself would not drive around killing people while you were drunk - because of what other people do. If, however, you say that since you will never consider driving drunk, such laws do not affect you at all, that's fine. By the same reasoning, though, people who will never own guns are not affected by restrictions on them. The DUI argument doesn't work with guns. Why should my right to keep and own a gun be restricted for any reason when it is my right under the Constitution to have that right. Any law infringing that right is against the Constitution. Just just because we a a couple of nutjobs out shooting up the place doesn't mean rights should be restricted. If they want to change the laws then they need amendment to the Constitution abolishing the 2nd, not end rights via state taxes, fees, restrictions, goofy training classes etc. So tell us precisely which proposals plan to confiscate your guns. All I'm hearing is a lot of whining about something that hasn't happened and is not going to happen. Why would you bring up confiscation when it was never mentioned. You do agree there are "restrictions to rights" being proposed. That doesn't mean necessarily confiscation. You guys read too much into things and you over analyze. You have a right to bear arms if you are not a felon or mentally incompetent. Doesn't mean you have a right to any firearm of your choice. That has already been established by the Supreme Court.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,144 #218 February 5, 2013 QuoteThe Supreme Court also thinks that a corporation is a person protected by the constitution, and back in the day they ruled that Dred Scott was personal property with no right to sue in Federal court. In other words, they don't always get it right. They get it right by definition. They can change it too, and the change is also right by definition. Most certainly the opinion of SCOTUS trumps yours, and mine, and every other poster here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cutaway68 4 #219 February 5, 2013 This is getting tiresome. The whole gun rights thing is a moot point. It is against every law out there to murder someone else, no matter what is used. Don't Pull Low... Unless You ARE!!! The pessimist says, "It can't get any worse than this." The optimist says, "Sure, it can." Be fun, have safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,100 #220 February 5, 2013 >Since the Feds and the States don't abide by the Constitution including >Amendment IV at the airport, and XIV laws again depriving of property (firearm as >property) then should not THE PEOPLE petition the government? Sure, they do every day. Since many parents have lost children to gun violence, should not THE PEOPLE petition the government to protect their children the right to life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #221 February 5, 2013 Quote>Since the Feds and the States don't abide by the Constitution including >Amendment IV at the airport, and XIV laws again depriving of property (firearm as >property) then should not THE PEOPLE petition the government? Sure, they do every day. Since many parents have lost children to gun violence, should not THE PEOPLE petition the government to protect their children the right to life? Sure they can do that. And the gov't might install better locks on childrens doors meeting publics concerns. Not trample the constitution by infringing on other rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,100 #222 February 5, 2013 >And the gov't might install better locks on childrens doors meeting publics concerns. And trample homeowner's rights by sending a government agent to install an OBAMA LOCK on your door that they have the keys to? Should they shred the Constitution while they're at it? For shame, you communist! The right to avoid being killed is pretty high on the list of rights we protect. It is generally higher on the list than the right to buy any weapon you like, any time you like, any way you like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #223 February 5, 2013 Quote>Since the Feds and the States don't abide by the Constitution including >Amendment IV at the airport, and XIV laws again depriving of property (firearm as >property) then should not THE PEOPLE petition the government? Sure, they do every day. Since many parents have lost children to gun violence, should not THE PEOPLE petition the government to protect their children the right to life? Sure Bying doing something useful and constructive Go to the School board and ask for armed protection"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,100 #224 February 5, 2013 >Go to the School board and ask for armed protection Great idea. If it sells just one gun, all the scaremongering will be worth it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #225 February 5, 2013 Quote>Go to the School board and ask for armed protection Great idea. If it sells just one gun, all the scaremongering will be worth it. Why do you hate children?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
