Teenager Shot by Vigilante

Message boards : Politics : Teenager Shot by Vigilante
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Jay Loveless

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 16
Credit: 862,026
RAC: 0
United States
Message 889346 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 4:21:20 UTC - in response to Message 889220.  

With your incredible lust for violence and mass gun crime I do not believe you ever got past the first stage.


Funny how no one seemed to think this of the US while they were in the UK and Europe during WW2....


Most individuals in the military during WWII did not have weapons at home and had not fired weapons until they joined the military. Were talking non farming city folk.



Actually, at the time of WWII, the US was still solidly rural in population balance. And country folk then as now, by an overwhelming majority lived in firearm possessing and using households.
Jay L
"Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"-
ID: 889346 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 889350 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 4:49:42 UTC - in response to Message 889345.  



You may WISH the Second Amendment would go away, but it will not, and it means just exactly what it says.



The problem is, I read it and see that it clearly states that the right to bear arms is there to enable a well regulated militia...while others read it and come to the conclusion that everyone and their dog can pack automatic assault weapons.

So it seems that does not mean what it says because we can't seem to agree on what it says.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If this was meant to speak to the right of citizen's as individuals to bear arms, why start the amendment with the words "A well regulated militia"?

The second part of the sentence states "being necessary to the security of a free state" doesn't mention the freedom of the individual but the collective freedom of the citizens of the state.

So a well regulated militia is necessary to protect the freedom of the state.

To protect that freedom, the right of the people, as represented by their well regulated militia, shall not be infringed.

Having said all this, I realize that the 2nd amendment has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court to allow citizens the same rights as their militias.

This still doesn't address the problem of a citizen shooting a kid in the street.
America is a nation of laws. The kid was denied his due proccess.
He was not found guilty by a jury of his peers, rather, he was found guilty by a guy with a gun.

Having been found guilty by this guy with a gun, the sentence was death.
Now we find the kid has also been denied his right of appeal, which even the most brutal criminals on Death Row are permitted.







ID: 889350 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 889360 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 5:30:39 UTC - in response to Message 889350.  



You may WISH the Second Amendment would go away, but it will not, and it means just exactly what it says.



The problem is, I read it and see that it clearly states that the right to bear arms is there to enable a well regulated militia


Precisely. That militia that will be gathered and regulated comes from the citizens at large, elligable to be in the military, who already have the arms they will use in the militia.

ID: 889360 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 May 99
Posts: 944
Credit: 52,956,491
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 889384 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 8:17:06 UTC - in response to Message 889345.  
Last modified: 29 Apr 2009, 8:17:32 UTC

Further, I am always amused by the voluntarily unarmed suggesting to me that I must disarm. Since you wouldn't DREAM of touching a nasty, evil old gun yourself, how in the bloody hell do you think you are going to make me?


Now, now, calm down. No need to swear at me before you pull the trigger.
How am I going to make you do what? Use a gun or NOT use a gun? Don't understand your question.

Who are your individual states at war with to need a militia anyway? Even if I allow that the 2nd amendment allows you to carry arms at all times (which I don't) what can this "militia" do that the army or National Guard cannot? Your law is out of date, past its time and far too dangerous for ordinary decent folk to trust you or your like. Its popular misinterpretation just allows far greater danger to all rather than reducing it.

Incidentally, I most certainly am voluntarily unarmed and so should the rest of the world's ordinary citizens. In the past, though, I have used and fired a gun but only as part of a military force. I have a marksman's badge to prove it. This is the whole point. Guns belong in the military and not on the streets. Guns on the street are carried only by hoodlums whether criminally intent or not. The presence of guns increases the likelihood of their being used and not the other way round. If you do not have a gun on you then you can't use it. QED.

How many street murders, school massacres, gun hold-ups and injuries does it take to make you realise that guns are for hurting people, not defending yourself? Their whole purpose is to kill and nothing else. Get them off your streets and away from your children and enjoy a more happy and peaceful society.

ID: 889384 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 889430 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 12:40:01 UTC - in response to Message 889345.  

British law on Citizen's Arrest
Private gun ownership should be one of the hardest things possible to achieve. It should never be a "right" and certainly is not permitted under the US Constitution unless you bend one phrase so far as to persuade the law enforcement process that this is the case.
US citizens who live by the gun have an appalling tendency both to deal death and to die by the gun. How many more have to die in this way before the truth hits you with magnum force?


What part of either the phrase "shall not be infringed" or the case DC vs Heller do you not understand? The framers of our Constitution were very smart fellers. In fact, they were so smart they were careful to write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in little bitty words that anyone could understand. You may WISH the Second Amendment would go away, but it will not, and it means just exactly what it says.

Further, I am always amused by the voluntarily unarmed suggesting to me that I must disarm. Since you wouldn't DREAM of touching a nasty, evil old gun yourself, how in the bloody hell do you think you are going to make me?




beating you, and not letting you chance to even think about pulling out the gun, do you have more stupid questions.
ID: 889430 · Report as offensive
Profile RandyC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 99
Posts: 714
Credit: 1,704,345
RAC: 0
United States
Message 889476 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 15:50:32 UTC

The fallacy in the guns vs no-guns argument has been summed up already:

Guns (pistols, rifles, assault weapons, etc.) don't kill people--people kill people.

Take away guns, people will use knives. Take away knives, people will use clubs. Take away X, people will use Y.

Solve the people-killing-people issue and the gun issue becomes moot.
ID: 889476 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 889493 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 16:21:16 UTC

The argument that killers will simply make use of another weapon sounds kind of silly in the face of the mass murders of late.

I can't see someone throwing knives from a clock tower or going through a school / workplace stabbing dozens of people without being overpowered rather quickly.
ID: 889493 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 889519 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 17:02:04 UTC - in response to Message 889493.  

The argument that killers will simply make use of another weapon sounds kind of silly in the face of the mass murders of late.

I can't see someone throwing knives from a clock tower or going through a school / workplace stabbing dozens of people without being overpowered rather quickly.

Unless they're Bruce Lee or Jean claude vandamme


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 889519 · Report as offensive
Profile RandyC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 99
Posts: 714
Credit: 1,704,345
RAC: 0
United States
Message 889529 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 17:17:45 UTC - in response to Message 889493.  
Last modified: 29 Apr 2009, 17:19:10 UTC

The argument that killers will simply make use of another weapon sounds kind of silly in the face of the mass murders of late.

I can't see someone throwing knives from a clock tower or going through a school / workplace stabbing dozens of people without being overpowered rather quickly.


Tell that to the citizens of <name your favorite location> who have just experienced the latest car/truck/suicide vest/<name your favorite home-made weapon of mass-destruction> killing.

[edit]Take away guns, people will use knives. Take away knives, people will use clubs. Take away X, people will use Y.[/edit]
ID: 889529 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 889548 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 17:49:36 UTC

I'm too tired from working all night to even attempt to explain the difference between a moment of passion or psychosis where someone grabs a gun and wigs out and a truck bomb that takes days/weeks to plan and build.

So keep presenting your case until you get to home made hydrogen bombs.
Which, by the way, is not a 2nd amendment right, as much as the rapture kooks would like to make it so.
ID: 889548 · Report as offensive
Profile RandyC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 99
Posts: 714
Credit: 1,704,345
RAC: 0
United States
Message 889663 - Posted: 29 Apr 2009, 23:58:55 UTC - in response to Message 889548.  

I'm too tired from working all night to even attempt to explain the difference between a moment of passion or psychosis where someone grabs a gun and wigs out and a truck bomb that takes days/weeks to plan and build.

So keep presenting your case until you get to home made hydrogen bombs.
Which, by the way, is not a 2nd amendment right, as much as the rapture kooks would like to make it so.


Yes, you definitely need to get some rest since you seem to forget that you're the one who decided to lump mass-murder and simple killers together.

The mass-murders of late have all been pre-meditated where the perpetrator had plenty of time to prepare the weapons of choice.

If some person who 'wigs out' can't find a gun handy, he can just as easily use some other weapon...makeshift or not.

Bin Laden is the one looking for the home made hydrogen bombs. The rapture 'kooks' are just expecting him to succeed.
ID: 889663 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 889754 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 3:12:38 UTC - in response to Message 889663.  



Yes, you definitely need to get some rest since you seem to forget that you're the one who decided to lump mass-murder and simple killers together.



Simply to make the point that one cannot kill 20 people from a clock tower by throwing knives.


ID: 889754 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 889760 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 3:51:39 UTC - in response to Message 889519.  

The argument that killers will simply make use of another weapon sounds kind of silly in the face of the mass murders of late.

I can't see someone throwing knives from a clock tower or going through a school / workplace stabbing dozens of people without being overpowered rather quickly.

Unless they're Bruce Lee or Jean claude vandamme

And even then, if people have the sense to scatter, they are not going to be ablt to chase everyone down. Clubs and knives are very short range weapons. Guns are much longer range weapons.

BTW, I agree with the analysis that the right to gun ownership in the second amendment is based on a militia. The militia structure that was common at the time of the revolutionary war was based on a small to midsized town. Everyone knew everyone else. The leaders of the militia tended to be the leaders of the community, and those people had a good idea who could be trusted with a weapon and who could not. The national guard has replaced the local militias in the well regulated part of the equation. The "militias" that sprang up around the country since the 1950's or so, tended not to be very well regulated - the leadership did not know at least some of their followers well at all.

What I have been told about the law governing when a gun owner can shoot someone is fairly clear. If you are personally threatened with a weapon, or to prevent the comission of a major felony (kidnapping, murder, and rape were mentioned) or your home is invaded by someone with a weapon, you are allowed to shoot. Property crimes were strictly a no no for shooting the criminal. Unfortunately, this varies from state to state in the US.
The guy walked across the street to confront the teenagers (stupid move), and shot one that was apparently trying to run away (really stupid move). The teenagers were not in the right either as stealing is against the law.

Yes, I learned how to shoot - in colege for a rifelry and handgun class for PE credits.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 889760 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 889915 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 17:35:43 UTC - in response to Message 889754.  



Yes, you definitely need to get some rest since you seem to forget that you're the one who decided to lump mass-murder and simple killers together.



Simply to make the point that one cannot kill 20 people from a clock tower by throwing knives.


or pull a columbine type attach. heck you couldnt even sit in the trunk of your car and snipe at individuals in teh general DC area if all you had were knives.

Guns are an incredibly inpersonal means of dispatching a person. A knife puts you in range for the individual to fight back. Fighting back means a better chance that someone wont die



In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 889915 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 890031 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 1:03:40 UTC - in response to Message 889754.  



Yes, you definitely need to get some rest since you seem to forget that you're the one who decided to lump mass-murder and simple killers together.



Simply to make the point that one cannot kill 20 people from a clock tower by throwing knives.



But one can do that quite handily with a crossbow and remain more hidden because there isn't any noise from a gunshot.


ID: 890031 · Report as offensive
Profile RandyC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 99
Posts: 714
Credit: 1,704,345
RAC: 0
United States
Message 890038 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 1:50:56 UTC - in response to Message 889754.  
Last modified: 1 May 2009, 1:54:06 UTC



Yes, you definitely need to get some rest since you seem to forget that you're the one who decided to lump mass-murder and simple killers together.



Simply to make the point that one cannot kill 20 people from a clock tower by throwing knives.


Yet you avoid the point that if there were a thousand rifles on the clock tower and yet no person to fire them, then zero people would be dead.

[edit]fix link[/edit]
ID: 890038 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 890056 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 3:20:59 UTC - in response to Message 890038.  



Yes, you definitely need to get some rest since you seem to forget that you're the one who decided to lump mass-murder and simple killers together.



Simply to make the point that one cannot kill 20 people from a clock tower by throwing knives.


Yet you avoid the point that if there were a thousand rifles on the clock tower and yet no person to fire them, then zero people would be dead.

[edit]fix link[/edit]

Most of us are perfectly willing to concede that it takes BOTH a weapon and a person willing to use or deploy the weapon. There are some epol=ple that need to be kept away from anything that remotely resemples a weapon as they will use it to attempt harm. There are also weapons that need to be kept out of the hands of all civilians. I really don't believe that you want to see your neighbor with an ICBM in the backyard. There is also a reason that they use plastic ware in prisons. Now the question becomes exactly where do we draw the line on both axis.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 890056 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 890062 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 3:57:36 UTC

I suppose we could start by eliminating clock towers...LOL

I'm just wondering if there have been any more newspaper stories since the last link was posted...regarding the kid who was shot dead by a 2nd amendment wielding vigilanty.
ID: 890062 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 890098 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 7:54:37 UTC - in response to Message 890062.  

I'm just wondering if there have been any more newspaper stories since the last link was posted...regarding the kid who was shot dead by a 2nd amendment wielding vigilanty.

First I assume you do know how to use a search engine.

There is this.

Otherwise nothing and I would expect nothing until it is time for petit jury selection, unless the kids parents decide to sue. Then there will be another media frenzy like the swine flu frenzy.

The DA has nothing to say, unless he is going to drop charges because the science supports Scott's version. Scott has nothing more to say, except to the Jury. His lawyer has said everything he is going to until he sees the discovery. The cops won't talk. The Grand Jurors can't talk.

The only people with much to say are the ones who have prejudged the case and screaming for a lynch mob to hang Scott, doing exactly what they accuse him of, except many of them are also trying to make money off it. And the rest of the media is busy with other sickly yellow swine.

Robert, why don't you close this thread until the trial, but open up a second amendment one if you want.

ID: 890098 · Report as offensive
Profile Jay Loveless

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 16
Credit: 862,026
RAC: 0
United States
Message 890172 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 14:21:29 UTC - in response to Message 889384.  

[quote]Further, I am always amused by the voluntarily unarmed suggesting to me that I must disarm. Since you wouldn't DREAM of touching a nasty, evil old gun yourself, how in the bloody hell do you think you are going to make me?


Now, now, calm down. No need to swear at me before you pull the trigger.
How am I going to make you do what? Use a gun or NOT use a gun? Don't understand your question.


Your use of language indicates you are neither stupid nor uneducated, therefor I must conclude your professed failure to understand is an artifice.

Who are your individual states at war with to need a militia anyway? Even if I allow that the 2nd amendment allows you to carry arms at all times (which I don't) what can this "militia" do that the army or National Guard cannot? Your law is out of date, past its time and far too dangerous for ordinary decent folk to trust you or your like. Its popular misinterpretation just allows far greater danger to all rather than reducing it.


It is now settled Constitutional law that the first phrase of the Second Amendment is an explanatory, subordinate, prefatory phrase. As such it is not limiting to the scope of the right acknowledged in the primary phrase. It is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms, not the State.

Incidentally, I most certainly am voluntarily unarmed and so should the rest of the world's ordinary citizens. In the past, though, I have used and fired a gun but only as part of a military force. I have a marksman's badge to prove it. This is the whole point. Guns belong in the military and not on the streets. Guns on the street are carried only by hoodlums whether criminally intent or not. The presence of guns increases the likelihood of their being used and not the other way round. If you do not have a gun on you then you can't use it. QED.


Odd. The facts do not seem to bear you out. In the UK, as your gun control laws have gotten tighter, you violent firearms crime rate has risen exponentially. In the US, those areas with the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest (and continually rising) rates of violent crime, while in those areas where gun laws in general, and carry laws in particular are most lax or have been relaxed, violent crime is lowest and is decreasing. It seems, oddly enough, that criminals prefer unarmed victims.

How many street murders, school massacres, gun hold-ups and injuries does it take to make you realise that guns are for hurting people, not defending yourself? Their whole purpose is to kill and nothing else. Get them off your streets and away from your children and enjoy a more happy and peaceful society.


Guns are entirely neutral in intent. They may be used to attack or to defend. Since criminals by definition do not obey the law, only honest people will be restrained by laws controlling access to weapons, which puts us back to the unarmed victims situation. Not acceptable at all.
Jay L
"Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"-
ID: 890172 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Teenager Shot by Vigilante


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.