3 cheers for the second amendment.....

[indra]

I'd follow that with some Saipan eye candy in retort but. . .

I don't live there any more and nothing in Columbus, Ohio, sadly, can compete with that.

That was the life, man. I'm telling you.

You mean the mud brown Olentangy river isn't doing it for you?

 

[AchtungBono]

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.


~Thomas Jefferson

This was true for the 1700's after the colonies declared independence from Britain and drafted the constitution to protect themselves from ever having their newly-won freedoms curtailed.

Needless to say, a lot has happened in the centuries since, and some aspects of the constitution need to be brought up to date by virtue of the times that we live in - including the first amendment, second amendment, and fourth amendment.

 

[BonosSaint]

So which particular changes would you make to the first and fourth amendments?

 

[deep]

repeal all that crap

I know it is a dangerous thought, the govment might start to board soldiers in your house,

Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

if someone claims you own them $20, demand a jurt trial.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

[BVS]

Huh. Second time in two days that's been said here in FYM. Maybe we should just hit the reset button on the whole thing. Because, you know, nothing the Founding Fathers said is applicable today. Except for the stuff we agree with.

And for the record -- the Founding Fathers didn't foresee assault weapons in the hands of gang bangers, a license to own and operate a gun is not the same thing as barring gun ownership, and neither is a background check.

The Founding Fathers didn't foresee assault weapons, period. They didn't foresee a gun culture that was spinning out of control. Hell they couldn't even foresee the fact that the government's weaponry and the citizen's weaponry would one day be comparable to a cannon vs a stick.

BUT, the Founding Fathers did know that they were not absolute and that the constitution would evolve, it was designed to do so.

 

[AchtungBono]

So which particular changes would you make to the first and fourth amendments?

Well, I would amend the first amendment in such a way that would prevent horrible spectacles like protesters shouting abuse and curses at military funerals - I think that's absolutely appalling and should be outlawed. There's a time and place for protesting, but not when the family is grieving for their fallen child who died defending his country.

As for the fourth amendment:
I would change it to allow ALL materials seized at a crime scene to be admitted into evidence, regardless if they were obtained with a search warrant or not. For example: if a cop stops a guy, opens his car trunk and finds a dead body in there, it's ludacris that it can't be used as evidence because he didn't obtain a search warrant to search the car.

Also, I believe that all dangerous criminals (i.e., murderers and rapists of children, etc), should not have any constitutional rights at all. They broke the law so there is no justification for the law to protect them.

 

[BVS]

Well, I would amend the first amendment in such a way that would prevent horrible spectacles like protesters shouting abuse and curses at military funerals - I think that's absolutely appalling and should be outlawed. There's a time and place for protesting, but not when the family is grieving for their fallen child who died defending his country.

Most military families would disagree with you. Their family member fought for that right, just because you don't like what they say doesn't mean it should be banned. If that were the case why not ban all Tea Partiers and Fox News?

As for the fourth amendment:
I would change it to allow ALL materials seized at a crime scene to be admitted into evidence, regardless if they were obtained with a search warrant or not. For example: if a cop stops a guy, opens his car trunk and finds a dead body in there, it's ludacris that it can't be used as evidence because he didn't obtain a search warrant to search the car.

He needs to have reason to open the trunk. Period. He doesn't need a warrant, just probable cause, speeding is not probable cause. The abuses that would occur if this were not in place would be harmful to justice.

Also, I believe that all dangerous criminals (i.e., murderers and rapists of children, etc), should not have any constitutional rights at all. They broke the law so there is no justification for the law to protect them.

What? So you're saying after they are found guilty they really should just be killed, right?

 

[Diemen]

Heh

if a cop stops a guy, opens his car trunk and finds a dead body in there, it's ludacris

 

[AchtungBono]

Most military families would disagree with you. Their family member fought for that right, just because you don't like what they say doesn't mean it should be banned. If that were the case why not ban all Tea Partiers and Fox News?

Hi BVS,
I didn't say it should be banned altogether....I said that it shouldn't be allowed during the funeral. I have no problem with protesting - but there's a time and place. I'm sure the soldier didn't fight for the right of his family to be jeered at and cursed and he certainly didn't fight for the right to be called a killer.

He needs to have reason to open the trunk. Period. He doesn't need a warrant, just probable cause, speeding is not probable cause. The abuses that would occur if this were not in place would be harmful to justice.

If in the course of the traffic stop the cop becomes suspicious and opens the trunk and finds a dead body in there, which solves a 20 year old unsolved crime,it should be allowed into evidence. It's insane to let a killer off on a technicality like that.

What? So you're saying after they are found guilty they really should just be killed, right?

You've known my position on the death penalty for many years now and you know that I'm all for it.

In the case of BTK, Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and John Couey (who already died) - hell yeah!! What rights do they deserve after they butchered countless innocent people for no good reason? Why did they deserve any consideration at all? What consideration did they give their victims? What right did John Couey give little Jessica when he buried her alive after raping her? what right did BTK give the Ortega family after he slaughtered them senselessly? What right did Tim McVeigh have after blowing up over 100 innocent people (including children). The law should not protect criminals like that.

So yes, absolutely - after proven and found guilty they should be executed without right of appeal.

 

[AchtungBono]

yo bro' I'm down widdat man...y'know what I'm sayin'?

 

[AchtungBono]

Here is a perfect case in point about someone deserving to be tarred and feathered and hung up by the balls....

Police say 2-year-old killed for crying during World Cup - Game On!: Covering the Latest Sports News

 

[BVS]

Hi BVS,
I didn't say it should be banned altogether....I said that it shouldn't be allowed during the funeral. I have no problem with protesting - but there's a time and place. I'm sure the soldier didn't fight for the right of his family to be jeered at and cursed and he certainly didn't fight for the right to be called a killer.

So it should only be banned at funerals?

If in the course of the traffic stop the cop becomes suspicious and opens the trunk and finds a dead body in there, which solves a 20 year old unsolved crime,it should be allowed into evidence. It's insane to let a killer off on a technicality like that.

Well like I said, he/she needs probable cause. Not just a hunch. If we allowed "suspicion" to guide our justice what would stop anti-semetic cops from searching vehicles only because they're Jewish?

You've known my position on the death penalty for many years now and you know that I'm all for it.

That doesn't answer the question.

In the case of BTK, Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and John Couey (who already died) - hell yeah!! What rights do they deserve after they butchered countless innocent people for no good reason? Why did they deserve any consideration at all? What consideration did they give their victims? What right did John Couey give little Jessica when he buried her alive after raping her? what right did BTK give the Ortega family after he slaughtered them senselessly? What right did Tim McVeigh have after blowing up over 100 innocent people (including children). The law should not protect criminals like that.

You're reacting by emotion. You can't write law based on emotion.

So yes, absolutely - after proven and found guilty they should be executed without right of appeal.

And if they were actually innocent? You do realize there have been successful appeals that have freed innocent men, right? If we had your type of justice you would have killed an innocent man.

 

[Diemen]

If we want to discuss the death penalty, lets keep it to a separate thread.

 

[AchtungBono]

So it should only be banned at funerals?

I'm saying that people should be considerate of other people's feelings. It would be so wrong for me to go into your house (if you were in mourning G-d forbid) and start slandering and cursing your loved one, don't you think so?

Well like I said, he/she needs probable cause. Not just a hunch. If we allowed "suspicion" to guide our justice what would stop anti-semetic cops from searching vehicles only because they're Jewish?

If I have nothing to hide then the police are more than welcome to open my trunk, even if it's just to bust my chops. But if I'm hiding weapons or drugs and I get busted - that's MY problem and I'm not going to claim my rights were violated because I WAS caught committing a crime.

That doesn't answer the question.

You're reacting by emotion. You can't write law based on emotion.

Of course you can, otherwise rapists and murderers would get off with a 100 dollar dine and that's it. Of course outrage is a factor in judgments - that's only logical.

And if they were actually innocent? You do realize there have been successful appeals that have freed innocent men, right? If we had your type of justice you would have killed an innocent man.

Yes I know that innocent people have been freed after having been convicted. I'm talking about a criminal who was proven guilty by EVERY means and with no doubt whatsoever: DNA doesn't lie...it can convict a man or exonerate him. If a vicious criminal is convicted on irrefutable(sp?) evidence then by all means execute him.

 

[redhotswami]

I can't believe this bullshit loophole still exists.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Media

 

[UberBeaver]

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.


~Thomas Jefferson

I believe this is still important.

 

[BVS]

I'm saying that people should be considerate of other people's feelings. It would be so wrong for me to go into your house (if you were in mourning G-d forbid) and start slandering and cursing your loved one, don't you think so?

Yes, but you can't legislate being a considerate person.

If I have nothing to hide then the police are more than welcome to open my trunk, even if it's just to bust my chops. But if I'm hiding weapons or drugs and I get busted - that's MY problem and I'm not going to claim my rights were violated because I WAS caught committing a crime.

What if you are 18 driving your parents car, they have alcohol in the back and you don't know it, you get pulled over for speeding? Under your "cops don't need rules" mentality this minor would not only get a speeding ticket but also a Minor in Possession. This is fair to you? The 18 year old was innocent except for speeding.

Of course you can, otherwise rapists and murderers would get off with a 100 dollar dine and that's it. Of course outrage is a factor in judgments - that's only logical.

This is not based on emotion, it's based on what threat they pose to society.

Yes I know that innocent people have been freed after having been convicted. I'm talking about a criminal who was proven guilty by EVERY means and with no doubt whatsoever: DNA doesn't lie...it can convict a man or exonerate him. If a vicious criminal is convicted on irrefutable(sp?) evidence then by all means execute him.

This is not what you stated before. Appeals and rights exist so that we can exhaust every avenue. You may not like it, but the innocent framed people do.

 

[Diemen]

Of course you can, otherwise rapists and murderers would get off with a 100 dollar dine and that's it. Of course outrage is a factor in judgments - that's only logical.

...

Yes I know that innocent people have been freed after having been convicted. I'm talking about a criminal who was proven guilty by EVERY means and with no doubt whatsoever: DNA doesn't lie...it can convict a man or exonerate him. If a vicious criminal is convicted on irrefutable(sp?) evidence then by all means execute him.

This is not what you stated before. Appeals and rights exist so that we can exhaust every avenue. You may not like it, but the innocent framed people do.

If we want to discuss the death penalty, lets keep it to a separate thread.

Ahem.

 

[HBK-79]

The Founding Fathers didn't foresee a gun culture that was spinning out of control.

How is the gun culture in America spinning out of control?

What specific examples could you cite?

 

[BVS]

How is the gun culture in America spinning out of control?

What specific examples could you cite?

Look on youtube, you have "parents" that are filming their 5 year olds how to fire automatic weapons and then laughing at them when it backfires on them.

You have a whole culture out there that only care about one issue and that's gun rights, they live breathe guns. Conventions, magazines, family days at the range, etc...

It's not just about protection like the Forefathers talked about, it's much more now.

And I haven't even touched upon movies or gang culture.

Do you really not see it?

 

[DrTeeth]

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.


~Thomas Jefferson

Well good luck with that!

 

[bigjohn2441]

 

[BVS]

I can't tell, is that your living room or bedroom?

 

[Jive Turkey]

You guys keep arguing over the 2nd amendment. Its the perfect distraction from where the real gun danger is coming from. You're playing right into the terrorist's hands. fools

YouTube - NMA 2010.06.30 動新聞 神學士恐怖「猴」子 受訓狙殺美軍

 

[HBK-79]

You have a whole culture out there that only care about one issue and that's gun rights, they live breathe guns. Conventions, magazines, family days at the range, etc...

It's not just about protection like the Forefathers talked about, it's much more now.

And I haven't even touched upon movies or gang culture.

Do you really not see it?

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to "gun politics" in America. That's why I asked your opinion.

All I know is that after the Columbine shooting, the whole "gun control vs. gun rights" debate heated up dramatically. It's worsened since then. Now you have the Brady Campaign and that Students for Concealed Carry on Campus movement that sprouted after Virginia Tech. Both are irrational special interest groups, if you ask me.

I also know that Americans have become desensitized to mass shootings when they are reported in the news. Because it happens all the time in this day and age.

Plus, I found if funny that when Obama was elected, many staunch right-wingers went out and bought more and more firearms, thinking "Those Dems will raise the prices of guns- oh no!"

Anyway, BVS, I just wanted to ask you (1) why America has a "pro-gun vs. gun control" battle ranging on, and (2) why America suffers from so much gun violence (i.e. shootings at schools, malls, churches, etc.).

 

[BVS]

All I know is that after the Columbine shooting, the whole "gun control vs. gun rights" debate heated up dramatically. It's worsened since then. Now you have the Brady Campaign and that Students for Concealed Carry on Campus movement that sprouted after Virginia Tech. Both are irrational special interest groups, if you ask me.

Why is the Brady Campaign an irrational special interest group?

Anyway, BVS, I just wanted to ask you (1) why America has a "pro-gun vs. gun control" battle ranging on, and (2) why America suffers from so much gun violence (i.e. shootings at schools, malls, churches, etc.).

Why do we have a pro-gun vs gun control battle? That's kind of like asking why do we have Republican vs Democrats I don't know.

Why gun violence? Well I think there are far too many answers for that. I think the reasons for gang violence is much different than the reasons for mass shootings in schools, or crimes of passion, etc... All I do know is that there would be much less of all of these if guns were harder to get legally or on the black market.

 

[melon]

Everything the founding fathers said is perfectly applicable today. Just the same as the Bible. I better not catch anyone eating shellfish.

As said from the taken-for-granted luxury of a stable democratic government. Certainly, if the Roman Republic's transition to a fully autocratic empire is a worthy example, this may not be a given forever. Or, looking at it from a more modern perspective, the physical inability of a successful popular revolt to happen in nations like Iran or North Korea, is because of the sheer imbalance in firepower between the heavily armed government and the public.

Just as cars can kill people in the wrong hands, I certainly support legal measures that require standards for responsible gun ownership. Kids shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car and neither should they have access to guns; but, just as we would not criminalize the former because kids shouldn't drive them, we would not necessarily have to criminalize the latter.

 

[melon]

Anyway, BVS, I just wanted to ask you (1) why America has a "pro-gun vs. gun control" battle ranging on, and (2) why America suffers from so much gun violence (i.e. shootings at schools, malls, churches, etc.).

Actually, the perception that U.S. gun violence is "out of control" is largely a media construct. Certainly, looking at these figures, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is higher compared to European nations that have banned firearms. Nonetheless, in many cases, the non-firearm homicide rate is much higher accordingly so that the overall homicide statistics are actually worse in many nations compared to the U.S. I do not doubt that if we were to successfully rid the U.S. of all guns that many homicides would shift from firearms to other weapons.

Why homicides happen at all appear to be motivated by other circumstances (socioeconomic/cultural, etc.), rather than the presence or lack thereof of firearms.

 

[the iron horse]

Actually, the perception that U.S. gun violence is "out of control" is largely a media construct. Certainly, looking at these figures, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is higher compared to European nations that have banned firearms. Nonetheless, in many cases, the non-firearm homicide rate is much higher accordingly so that the overall homicide statistics are actually worse in many nations compared to the U.S. I do not doubt that if we were to successfully rid the U.S. of all guns that many homicides would shift from firearms to other weapons.

Why homicides happen at all appear to be motivated by other circumstances (socioeconomic/cultural, etc.), rather than the presence or lack thereof of firearms.

Thank you for the information.