|
Originally Posted by elesjuan
(Post 913996)
Where the hell did you come up with that from my post? I was merely making a statment in reply to your statement (which I applied bold to) that an execution by firing squad is FAAAAAR cheaper than our system's current death penelty costs or sending someone up for life. Nowhere did I ever make an argument against someone's right for due process.
Why do you think it's so expensive? Due process in capital punishment cases is $$$$$$$$$$$$....and even more $$$$$$$$$ to boot. The expense has nothing to do with imprisoning them, or of their execution, or of anything else other than due process. The expense comes from making certain they've exhausted their appeals and have gone through proper due process before they can be executed. This gets really expensive, really fast. To state that a firing squad is extremely cheap compared to life imprisonment either tries to blatantly ignore this, or is made out of ignorance where the real expense comes from. There's just not a lot of money to be saved in capital punishment unless we have people waive their right of due process. |
Bullshit. It's lawyers raping the system.
BTW, why do we need due process for the Colorado shooter? Is there any question of guilt? Why is he not dead yet? |
Originally Posted by rleete
(Post 914071)
Bullshit. It's lawyers raping the system.
There is no good answer to this, unless you propose either massive government regulation, or just to remove due process. BTW, why do we need due process for the Colorado shooter? Is there any question of guilt? Why is he not dead yet? |
Then it should have happened by now. Within hours. Arrested, brought before a judge, charged, sentenced, hanged/shot. It's all being dragged out by those that make money off the gov't teat.
|
Originally Posted by rleete
(Post 914136)
Then it should have happened by now. Within hours. Arrested, brought before a judge, charged, sentenced, hanged/shot. It's all being dragged out by those that make money off the gov't teat.
You are evading the point rleete. Either someone has their constitutional rights, or not. What you are saying is making someone give up their constitutional rights is acceptable. Note that I am *absolutely not saying* that the Colorado or Wisconsin shooters should not get the death penalty, or at least life imprisonment. All I am saying is that they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to due process. |
Well, the Wisconsin shooter already got the death penalty while engaging the police in a firefight. I do wish the Colorado shooter would have tried to take on the cops and gotten a bullet in the head, thus saving us the time/cost of the court process. However, since that didn't happen, he is certainly due his day(s) in court.
|
You dont get to apply rights as convientent or emotionaly acceptable. Thats the whole point. If they were things to be applied as fashionable they would be meaningless. Rights are already pretty thinly protected in few cases as-is. As soon as you start mucking with them it gets easier and easier to scrap them. Interpretation is of course necesary. As is modifiction sometimes. But just saying 'not in this case' is a pretty huge mistake.
And for my part, fuck executing the Colorado shooter. That went dwn 3 miles from my place. My renter was there. We both agree that he should go into the Florence, CO ADX facility never to be seen again. Let Satan's Ginger Kid rot there without human contact with concecutive life sentences for every person he killed. Dont allow the fame of execution. The coward wanted to shoot civillians then laid down as soon as armed opposition shows up to preserve his life. Fine. It will be well protected with healthful food and clean surroundings for the rest of his days. And it'll cost less and be less of a spectacle on the TV too. Best solution and respectful of the law. |
I often find myself being assaulted by 747's and the likes of it, i really need something able to bring them down, with all the passengers, they're all in on it, I know it!
|
RPGs for all!
/thread |
2 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 914137)
So, you are saying he should give up his right of due process? There's a word for someone who was arrested, tried, and hanged within hours - it's called a kangaroo court, we used to have them. I don't know if you remember them from history classes.
You are evading the point rleete. Either someone has their constitutional rights, or not. What you are saying is making someone give up their constitutional rights is acceptable. Note that I am *absolutely not saying* that the Colorado or Wisconsin shooters should not get the death penalty, or at least life imprisonment. All I am saying is that they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to due process. Don't waste your time with the reply button, I don't really care. Now, WHERE IS MY ROCKET?! https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1344834796 https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1344834796 |
Cross-posted from the general gun thread so as not to clutter it with politics:
Sam - I really respect your outlook and research on the topics, so I'd like to hear your reasoned thoughts on the subject. Preface: I'm a CWL holder and own multiple firearms. If you guys prefer not to mix the political with this thread, I am happy to start a new one or resurrect a previous one. Is there anything you would propose as a way to reduce the number of I believe the Columbine shooters, the "DC snipers", the Aurora theater shooter, the VA Tech shooter and the Newtown shooter all had access to weapons that were legally acquired, though not necessarily their own in the |
if we outlawed the sales of any guns/weapons today...without getting rid of the hundreds of millions already out there in the hands of law obiding citizens and some criminals, you won't ever make a difference.
Did you know the Aurora theater is a no-gun zone? |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 960418)
if we outlawed the sales of any guns/weapons today...without getting rid of the hundreds of millions already out there in the hands of law obiding citizens and some criminals, you won't ever make a difference.
Note I understand it won't make them inaccessible. Likewise, making something illegal will not make it impossible to get. See: "war on drugs." I also did a little reading up on mass shootings and school shootings in particular in the US. Holy heck, that makes for some scary and sad reading. :( Lots of boys in their early teens not old enough to legally drive but old enough to get a hold of someone's firearms (again, almost always legally obtained by the original owner) and kill or injure their classmates or teachers. I also note that the most common weapons tended to be smaller caliber rifles (like .22LR) and hand guns and there were plenty of high fatality/injury events during the time in which the Clinton AWB was in place. I'll hold off on more thoughts until Sam has a chance to chime in. |
What about when Kony comes and steals you from your parents, brainwashes you, gives you a gun, and makes you murder them and others?
|
"He (President Obama) is actively supportive of, for example, Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein’s stated intent to revive a piece of legislation that would reinstate the assault weapons ban," White House press secretary Jay Carney said during his daily briefing.
*sigh* |
Almost all mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones. This is attributed to the fact that most people who commit random mass shootings are mentally disturbed and are actually "weak" or perceive themselves as such so they choose to carry out any attack in an area in which they feel will have the least likely chance to have an armed victim.
I find it funny that the media rarely discusses all of the shootings that were thwarted by armed citizens (i.e.Shoney's Restaurant Anniston, Alabama 1991; High School in Pearl, Miss. 1997; middle-school dance Edinboro, Penn. 1998; New Life Church Colorado Springs, Colo. 2007 etc.). As much as most people will freak out over it I think that there should be no gun free zones unless they are enforced by metal detectors and armed guards. That will atleast give people a fighting chance. The other problem is how fast these shooters become famous due to the modern mass media. You get people becoming copy cats. Many mass shooters were found to have studied their predecessors. |
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
(Post 960460)
I'll hold off on more thoughts until Sam has a chance to chime in.
|
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 960469)
The other problem is how fast these shooters become famous due to the modern mass media. You get people becoming copy cats. Many mass shooters were found to have studied their predecessors. Unfortunately our news channels aren't really news, they are entertainment. And what is more entertaining than a mass shooting? Better interview some crying children, surely that will help you get to the bottom of this. It's disgusting. |
Guys- How many fucking times do I have to say this?
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. On the morning of February 28, 1997, after months of preparation, including extensive reconnoitering of their intended target—the Bank of America branch located at 6600 Laurel Canyon Boulevard—Phillips and Mătăsăreanu loaded five rifles, one handgun, and approximately 3,300 rounds of ammunition in box and drum magazines into the trunk of their vehicle: two modified Norinco Type 56 S rifles, a modified Norinco Type 56 S-1, a semi automatic HK91 and a modified Bushmaster Dissipator. Phillips also carried a 9mm Beretta Model 92FS INOX, holstered underneath his jacket.[15] Phillips wore a bulletproof vest and several pieces of home made body armor, covering his groin, shins, thighs, and forearms. To store box magazines for the rifles, in particular the HK91, he also wore a load bearing vest over the bulletproof one.[16] Mătăsăreanu wore only a bulletproof vest, but included a metal trauma plate to protect vital organs. Additionally, both robbers had sewn watch faces onto the back of their gloves.[17] Before entering, they took the muscle relaxer phenobarbital to calm their nerves.[18] These fucking laws DO NOTHING TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE!!!!!!! YOU CAN BAN THINGS UNTIL YOU'RE BLUE IN THE FACE BUT IT'S GOING TO STOP NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
I have a great idea how to stop drunk driving deaths.
outlaw cars. but put tons of loopholes in the bill so everyone keep to grandfather any existing car, legitimate sports cars can still be sold, and people can still purchase new larger deadly cars like SUVs so long as they meet certain mpg standards. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands