My Solution

Byrnzie

john roach wrote:

Guilty get a fair trial so that everyone else cn continue to get a fair trial . If you take away fair trials from one you risk taking it away from everyone, because once you give the people in charge the power to decide innocence or guilt without trials what's to stop them from saying you are guilty. Everyone gets a fair trial to protect the innocent . And as far as letting the government know everything you're doing, well I don't trust anyone that much.

Right.

dimitrispearljam

john roach wrote:

Guilty get a fair trial so that everyone else cn continue to get a fair trial . If you take away fair trials from one you risk taking it away from everyone, because once you give the people in charge the power to decide innocence or guilt without trials what's to stop them from saying you are guilty. Everyone gets a fair trial to protect the innocent . .

Bingo!

your move now

as long as we're looking at ridiculous solutions ds why don't we put evryone who wants to be allowed a gun by right and anyone who wants to live in a society which violates human rights... ie the right to a fair trial and put them in their own little community and leave those of us who can use the events to come to the logical conclusion alone????

riotgrl

Byrnzie wrote:

push me and i will resist wrote:

I realize its not the Middle Ages. Would you give the Conneticut school shooter, if he didn't kill himself, the chance to prove his innocence?

What about the sick fuck at the Batman movie last year? Does he get the right to a lawyer and waste all that money that could be going to good places.

Timothy Mcveigh, remember him. Is he innocent as well till someone proves he is guilty.

I could go on and on with these cases where there is no question they murdered people.

I used to enjoy Pantera, Dimebag was a favorite musician of mine. He was shot and killed on stage playing his guitar, would that sick fuck get a fair trial as well.

You could list a thousand cases. They're irrelevant. Everyone has the right to habeas corpus - to a fair trial. Otherwise society would break down, and we could just go around killing anyone we thought was guilty of anything.

This is scary that people are so willing to defend ONE amendment to the exclusion of all others. Some of you are really willing to suspend habeas corpus and exclude the 5th amendment entirely in order to protect your precious guns? This is the problem with people only reading one section of the Constitution.

blueandwhite

push me and i will resist wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

push me and i will resist wrote:

I agree with you here in regards to the death penalty. If you shoot and kill then you don't even get a lawyer or a trial. If you take a life then you lose yours. I've never understood how murderers get the chance for a trial, to plead insanity and then get parole. It just makes no sense no matter what country you live in.

There's something called 'innocent until proven guilty'. That's why they get a trial.

These aren't the fucking Middle Ages.

I realize its not the Middle Ages. Would you give the Conneticut school shooter, if he didn't kill himself, the chance to prove his innocence?

What about the sick fuck at the Batman movie last year? Does he get the right to a lawyer and waste all that money that could be going to good places.

Timothy Mcveigh, remember him. Is he innocent as well till someone proves he is guilty.

I could go on and on with these cases where there is no question they murdered people.

I used to enjoy Pantera, Dimebag was a favorite musician of mine. He was shot and killed on stage playing his guitar, would that sick fuck get a fair trial as well.

The law must be equal and objective. You can't simply pick and choose or you give an arbitrary mob the power to decide the fate of everyone. The Newtown shooter was initially misidentified and in spite of your list of scumbags there have been numerous wrongful convictions for heinous crimes; individuals who you would simply lynch up to prove a point. At the time of these people were convicted a jury of their peers were also convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that these people were guilty as sin. At the end of the day mob justice is not justice, it's state endorsed murder.

JonnyPistachio

If we're going to go all futuristic and kinda off the deep end, then maybe its time to talk about the future of how a gun operates. Maybe there's a way to manufacture a gun that only works with the original purchaser...maybe some kind of fingerprint/biological identification trigger?

unsung

catefrances wrote:

pardon my french but.... fuck that big brother.

I figured this would be the place that people would be all over that, given the love for big government here.

Jason P

JonnyPistachio wrote:

If we're going to go all futuristic and kinda off the deep end, then maybe its time to talk about the future of how a gun operates. Maybe there's a way to manufacture a gun that only works with the original purchaser...maybe some kind of fingerprint/biological identification trigger?

We can focus on that after Hoverboard technology has been perfected by the scientists at Mattel.

unsung

riotgrl wrote:

This is scary that people are so willing to defend ONE amendment to the exclusion of all others. Some of you are really willing to suspend habeas corpus and exclude the 5th amendment entirely in order to protect your precious guns? This is the problem with people only reading one section of the Constitution.

I'll take this.

Who on this forum has complained more about NDAA, the PATRIOT Act, FISA, the TSA, cops stopping people without just cause, etc. than me?

All of the above are unconstitutional. But the public bites in the name of "safety".

Go Beavers

DS1119 wrote:

Everyone is imbedded with a microchip. Every purchase you make gets put into a database that's sortable and searchable by anyone. Also, the chip can be tracked using GPS. A crime happens...the police can see what people were near the area of the crime...what items they own or have purchased but more importantly where they are now. In the microchip could be such info as BAC and drug levels to. I think such close monitoring of legal citizens would only benefit society and guard against the few who break the laws. It's a small price to pay of our individual freedoms but at the same time very necessary.

I know you're being tongue-in-cheek here, but then why do you then sincerely support roadblocks to catch illegals and drunks?

JonnyPistachio

Jason P wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

If we're going to go all futuristic and kinda off the deep end, then maybe its time to talk about the future of how a gun operates. Maybe there's a way to manufacture a gun that only works with the original purchaser...maybe some kind of fingerprint/biological identification trigger?

We can focus on that after Hoverboard technology has been perfected by the scientists at Mattel.

I'll be very sad if I never see hoverboard technology in my lifetime. I've given up on flying cars though. Fuck the Jetsons.

riotgrl

unsung wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

This is scary that people are so willing to defend ONE amendment to the exclusion of all others. Some of you are really willing to suspend habeas corpus and exclude the 5th amendment entirely in order to protect your precious guns? This is the problem with people only reading one section of the Constitution.

I'll take this.

Who on this forum has complained more about NDAA, the PATRIOT Act, FISA, the TSA, cops stopping people without just cause, etc. than me?

All of the above are unconstitutional. But the public bites in the name of "safety".

I agree that you have consistently been opposed to a multitude of issues surrounding the constitutionality of quite a few events, laws, etc. My comment was not specifically directed towards you but some others are not quite so consistent in their views, on either side of the aisle. However, I am not a strict constructionist and I do not believe that we can examine the Constitution without knowing the history behind the reason why articles of specific amendments were added or included in this document. I think some, not saying you, but some, have no clue about the history behind the document. It can be argued, and, has been argued, by people way smarter than me, that the 2nd amendment pertains to a well-regulated militia and not to the individual being guaranteed the right to an uzi.

unsung

Madison cited Locke when he wrote the Bill of Rights, that the Bill of Rights would be a list of natural rights, therefore making the natural right inherent to individuals. The Supreme Court (I do hate using the SC as backup) agreed that the Bill of Rights are individual rights. So the 2nd does apply to a singular person.


As far as an uzi, I'm going to assume you are implying a full auto weapon, it is heavily regulated by the General (federal) government for many years. It is, by federal law possible to own one, however the States have the right to regulate to a certain extent. This is why I get up in arms about the federal government banning anything not having to do with Art I Sec VIII, it is an abuse of power and a Constitutional violation.

Someone thought that they were being funny recently when they asked if it was ok to take a crap on his neighbor's car, because "it wasn't in the Constitution". The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not exist to limit an individual, they exist to limit the General government.

riotgrl

unsung wrote:

Madison cited Locke when he wrote the Bill of Rights, that the Bill of Rights would be a list of natural rights, therefore making the natural right inherent to individuals. The Supreme Court (I do hate using the SC as backup) agreed that the Bill of Rights are individual rights. So the 2nd does apply to a singular person.


As far as an uzi, I'm going to assume you are implying a full auto weapon, it is heavily regulated by the General (federal) government for many years. It is, by federal law possible to own one, however the States have the right to regulate to a certain extent. This is why I get up in arms about the federal government banning anything not having to do with Art I Sec VIII, it is an abuse of power and a Constitutional violation.

Someone thought that they were being funny recently when they asked if it was ok to take a crap on his neighbor's car, because "it wasn't in the Constitution". The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not exist to limit an individual, they exist to limit the General government.

Locke not only addressed natural rights and the individual but he also addressed promoting the common good. That one of our most important duties and/or obligations pertain to preserving mankind and not infringing on another's right to life, liberty and property. When your right to own a weapon infringes on my right to life then you are not abiding by the principles of Lockean ideals nor those espoused by Madison or Jefferson.

unsung

And my weapons have never imposed on your rights or your life.

JimmyV

unsung wrote:

And my weapons have never imposed on your rights or your life.

...yet.

The gun advocates consistently pretend that every legally obtained gun is a safe gun. And maybe it is...right up until it isn't.

riotgrl

unsung wrote:

And my weapons have never imposed on your rights or your life.

I have been threatened with a gun - not your gun but a gun. That infringed on my rights and my life.

I've never been opposed to people owning guns but to think that large magazines and clips gained without background checks is ok, well, that does infringe on my rights. How can you (the collective you) say that any weapon obtained without a background check is acceptable? That is unconstitutional.

fear4freedom

"THE MARK OF THE BEAST"!

As soon as %33-50 of the population support the OP's fantasy....is when legislation will begin to implant all babies with "The Mark of the Beast"!

Thats when we know.....its time for God to come back and make this world righteous!

unsung

riotgrl wrote:

unsung wrote:

And my weapons have never imposed on your rights or your life.

I have been threatened with a gun - not your gun but a gun. That infringed on my rights and my life.

I've never been opposed to people owning guns but to think that large magazines and clips gained without background checks is ok, well, that does infringe on my rights. How can you (the collective you) say that any weapon obtained without a background check is acceptable? That is unconstitutional.

Where have I said that I'm opposed to background checks? I haven't.

vant0037

DS1119 wrote:

Everyone is imbedded with a microchip. Every purchase you make gets put into a database that's sortable and searchable by anyone. Also, the chip can be tracked using GPS. A crime happens...the police can see what people were near the area of the crime...what items they own or have purchased but more importantly where they are now. In the microchip could be such info as BAC and drug levels to. I think such close monitoring of legal citizens would only benefit society and guard against the few who break the laws. It's a small price to pay of our individual freedoms but at the same time very necessary.

We tried to have our smaller cat microchipped, but he had an allergic reaction to it, so it was removed. Now he just wears a collar with his name tag on it.