Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

School shooting in San Bernedino

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
    Talk to any defense attorney and they will tell you how much the Bill of Rights has been eroded over the last few decades by judicial precedence.

    Tuebor
    I know. Whenever I hear anyone on the political right make reference to the "Bill of Rights" I just instantly translate it to the "right to bear arms". All the other rights are nice intentions but not to be taken too seriously. They certainly aren't intended to interfere with an investigation, surveillance, a conviction or punishment when "we all know" we are dealing with a bad guy.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
      I know. Whenever I hear anyone on the political right make reference to the "Bill of Rights" I just instantly translate it to the "right to bear arms". All the other rights are nice intentions but not to be taken too seriously. They certainly aren't intended to interfere with an investigation, surveillance, a conviction or punishment when "we all know" we are dealing with a bad guy.
      Especially when the "bad guys" are from our own government.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #18
        School district spokeswoman;


        Armed security officers are not assigned to any of the district's elementary schools, said Maria Garcia, a school district spokeswoman. But she described security on the North Park campus as "very, very tight."
        Please define " very, very tight".
        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
          I know. Whenever I hear anyone on the political right make reference to the "Bill of Rights" I just instantly translate it to the "right to bear arms". All the other rights are nice intentions but not to be taken too seriously. They certainly aren't intended to interfere with an investigation, surveillance, a conviction or punishment when "we all know" we are dealing with a bad guy.
          I'm on the right, I support the 2nd amendment, however, I part ways with some on the right when they suggest the constitution prevents society from punishing individuals who violate the law.
          Anyone convicted of a felony involving the use of violence, the use of any weapon in the act of a violent crime should not be allowed to possess a weapon. Serving time does not suggest in any way that a criminal has been reformed, in fact, the idea of reform has been abandoned completely in the US penal system.
          Our prisons are nothing less than gang recruitment centers, run by gang members both inside and outside by the use of intimidation of prison officials.
          Possession of a weapon by such individuals should result in thier immediate arrest for violating the terms of their release. This would help reduce crime by giving prosecutors a powerful tool against gang members and mentally disturbed violent offenders.
          The USSC has confirmed the rights of municipalities in restricting the sales of certain weapons. The 1968 Gun Control Act was confirmed by the court, it banned the sale of some weapons.
          This would indicate that there is some flexibility.
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
            I'm on the right, I support the 2nd amendment, however, I part ways with some on the right when they suggest the constitution prevents society from punishing individuals who violate the law.
            Anyone convicted of a felony involving the use of violence, the use of any weapon in the act of a violent crime should not be allowed to possess a weapon. Serving time does not suggest in any way that a criminal has been reformed, in fact, the idea of reform has been abandoned completely in the US penal system.
            Our prisons are nothing less than gang recruitment centers, run by gang members both inside and outside by the use of intimidation of prison officials.
            Possession of a weapon by such individuals should result in thier immediate arrest for violating the terms of their release. This would help reduce crime by giving prosecutors a powerful tool against gang members and mentally disturbed violent offenders.
            The USSC has confirmed the rights of municipalities in restricting the sales of certain weapons. The 1968 Gun Control Act was confirmed by the court, it banned the sale of some weapons.
            This would indicate that there is some flexibility.
            The 1968 Gun Act is being rolled back even as we speak.

            Silencers will be deregulated soon, and full auto is very possible within the year.

            No man setting off to commit murder ever stopped because the weapon he planned to use was illegal.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              The Bill of Rights is an excuse?

              The nanny state doesn't exist. First you want to jail the mentally ill, then the domestic actors...it will end up in camps and ovens.

              This is still America. For now.
              For once I actually agree with you

              It's a shame to see some people on the right moving further left in their desire for a nanny-state.
              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
              - Benjamin Franklin

              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
                For once I actually agree with you

                It's a shame to see some people on the right moving further left in their desire for a nanny-state.
                Tell that to people in Chicago, New York City, or California. All of which have strict gun laws (which I do not support).
                Felons have a lot of restrictions, all constitutional.
                In this particular case, the woman did not take the threats seriously. That is a mistake that lead to a terrible chain of events.
                Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  The 1968 Gun Act is being rolled back even as we speak.

                  Silencers will be deregulated soon, and full auto is very possible within the year.

                  No man setting off to commit murder ever stopped because the weapon he planned to use was illegal.
                  But an impulsive decision will be acted upon less if there are less guns available.

                  But don't worry, I know it doesn't matter. And ultimately neither do death rates, murder rates, the rate of risk versus protection to the owner. There isn't any data that would significantly change the debate.

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X