Stupid fucking idiots like Harlan that have never been on the receiving end of bad shit should just shut the hell up when it comes to this subject.
The story Freak posted says it all, that girl's life is fucked up. Yeah she didnt die but you think she will be right in the head after all that shit?
Kill the SOB but throw hot water on him and cut him until he begs for death first.
That story is absolutely sick. God, that poor girl.
He was charged in a murder as a juvenile, though the outcome of that case is sealed, a law enforcement official said, and he spent eight years in prison for an attempted-murder conviction in 1996
Now that is what pisses me off. 8 years in prison for attempted murder...even though he's already killed before.
I can see both sides of the argument.
I can also see that the percentage of "rehabilitated" sex offenders is pretty low. Once a sexual/power deviant, almost always a sexual/power deviant.
If we can't kill them, then we need to have stricter laws to keep these freaks locked up for good. We also need to rise up as a populace against limp dick judges who allow convicted sex offenders and murderers to get out of jail easy after serving only a few years behind bars.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
Where is Bulldog, his signature has something about limp dicked judges.
I heard that story before, that is one sick fuck. I hope he gets put in with bubba and gets violently raped for the rest of his life. THAT would be justice.
I have given up on the death penalty simply because the strategy of wearing me down has worked. Lawyers who are anti capital punishment are bringing appeal after appeal in every case out there all probono just to stop the death penalty. My attitude is "ok, you win, life in prison is fine". It is just getting too fucking expensive and too much of a hassle to put a dog down.
The appeal process is important because some times we get it wrong and an innocent person gets put to death in our names.Originally Posted by bobblehead
C.H.U.D.
I understand the concern about convicting and executing an innocent person, but with modern crime solving methods, a judicial system that increasingly defers to the rights of the accused in court, and an appeals system, I'm confident that it's plenty accurate. Exonerations are very rare, statisically. They just get a lot of press when they happen.
I don't believe in letting everyone go free out of fear that we might get one wrong once in a while. Our justice system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got.
Who said anything about letting everyone go free? Let the system work....it can take a long time but the appeals process has to be there.
C.H.U.D.
In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).
The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.
It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.
Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait.
To me the second amendment is being able to keep and bear arms so we can defend the country from foreign invasion and to overthrow the government when some divine right (King George) nutters take power.In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).
The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.
It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.
Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait.
C.H.U.D.
This is an honest question...no politics involved.
Idle mentions municipal gun bans in cities and the NRA challenging.
What my question revolves around is of course the right to bear arms...but, in the old west, it was pretty standard to surrender your arms once you entered a city...not saying san fran..but, you know, the more rugged cities.
How/when did this change, why isn't this used as an example of when we surrended arms (maybe it is..i'm not familiar),etc.
Someone please illuminate me.
They really split some hairs in this opinion. The majority and dissents agreed that the second amendment (as imagined by the framers) ensured the individual right to possess weapons for use in a citizen militia. That's basically what you are saying.To me the second amendment is being able to keep and bear arms so we can defend the country from foreign invasion and to overthrow the government when some divine right (King George) nutters take power.In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).
The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.
It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.
Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait.
They differed in that the majority held the right was not limited to that purpose, and was understood to encompass possessing firearms for other purposes such as self-defense and hunting. The minority believed that the framers intended the right solely for the purpose of militias.
Growing up in Alaska subsistence hunting and coming from a family with a very long tradition of national defense I classify myself as a big gun rights advocate. But I find it hard to oppose a city wants to ban handguns....if they have a good law enforcement plan and the people of that area voted it in. Not being familiar with the case I'm not sure it was voted on by the people or just the city council. Did the ban cover shotguns as well?They really split some hairs in this opinion. The majority and dissents agreed that the second amendment (as imagined by the framers) ensured the individual right to possess weapons for use in a citizen militia. That's basically what you are saying.To me the second amendment is being able to keep and bear arms so we can defend the country from foreign invasion and to overthrow the government when some divine right (King George) nutters take power.In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).
The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.
It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.
Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait.
They differed in that the majority held the right was not limited to that purpose, and was understood to encompass possessing firearms for other purposes such as self-defense and hunting. The minority believed that the framers intended the right solely for the purpose of militias.
C.H.U.D.
It only changed today. Basically, the city rules you speak of (which I'm not familiar with, but I don't dispute at all) don't sound legally different from Washington D.C. or Chicago's modern municipal gun bans. Such bans were not considered unconstitutional until today.
Up until today, the 2nd amendment had never been definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court. It was an open question whether gun possession was an individual right to possess a firearm, even outside of a "well-regulated" militia, or whether gun possession was an individual right only if serving in a militia, or even whether there was no individual right at all and the Amendment only guaranteed the right of individual states to maintain militias. The U.S. v. Miller decision in 1939 was often touted as evidence that the Supreme Court interpreted the right solely for serving in militias, but this was not actually what the decision said, and there was debate on the issue. The majority decision today did not overrule Miller, but rather clarified what Miller held and distinguished it from the current case. Of course, the local rules you speak of were long before Miller anyway.
Today, now that individual possession of a firearm is a protected right under the Constitution, those forcible surrenders would probably not pass constitutional muster. But at the time, nobody knew exactly what the law was. And for that matter, the law was what the local lawmen said it was. If a traveler disagreed, good luck filing a lawsuit and getting enforcement in the lawless old West.
The local firearm surrender rules you mention were not cited to in the decision as examples of when a "right" can be surrendered, but similar other local rules were cited by the dissent---rules that existed at the time the Bill of Rights was written and would have been known to the framers. As there is a lot of litigation to come based upon this decision, I wouldn't be surprised if the Old West rules came up as examples of curtailing rights for the collective good (like the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater exception to free speech). Unless today's decision is overturned, many current and future gun control rules will need to be justified as exceptions in this way.
I just read that the ban did state that shotguns had to be disassembled or have a trigger lock on.Growing up in Alaska subsistence hunting and coming from a family with a very long tradition of national defense I classify myself as a big gun rights advocate. But I find it hard to oppose a city wants to ban handguns....if they have a good law enforcement plan and the people of that area voted it in. Not being familiar with the case I'm not sure it was voted on by the people or just the city council. Did the ban cover shotguns as well?They really split some hairs in this opinion. The majority and dissents agreed that the second amendment (as imagined by the framers) ensured the individual right to possess weapons for use in a citizen militia. That's basically what you are saying.To me the second amendment is being able to keep and bear arms so we can defend the country from foreign invasion and to overthrow the government when some divine right (King George) nutters take power.In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).
The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.
It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.
Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait.
They differed in that the majority held the right was not limited to that purpose, and was understood to encompass possessing firearms for other purposes such as self-defense and hunting. The minority believed that the framers intended the right solely for the purpose of militias.
C.H.U.D.
HOFer
Now the mayor says that just because people can OWN them doesn't mean he has to let them leave the house with them...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
As I understand it, they banned possession of a handgun without registration, and then banned registration of handguns except those that had already been registered prior to the ban, which was in 1976.I just read that the ban did state that shotguns had to be disassembled or have a trigger lock on.Growing up in Alaska subsistence hunting and coming from a family with a very long tradition of national defense I classify myself as a big gun rights advocate. But I find it hard to oppose a city wants to ban handguns....if they have a good law enforcement plan and the people of that area voted it in. Not being familiar with the case I'm not sure it was voted on by the people or just the city council. Did the ban cover shotguns as well?They really split some hairs in this opinion. The majority and dissents agreed that the second amendment (as imagined by the framers) ensured the individual right to possess weapons for use in a citizen militia. That's basically what you are saying.To me the second amendment is being able to keep and bear arms so we can defend the country from foreign invasion and to overthrow the government when some divine right (King George) nutters take power.In other news, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee individual citizens the right to keep and bear firearms (handguns, specifically, according to the facts of the case) for self-defense. It took me the entire afternoon to read the 157-page decision (including dissents).
The ruling is very broad, and it calls for further litigation to hammer out the contours of the law. Some interesting arguments were made on both sides. I agree with the conclusion, and most, but not all, of the majority's reasoning. I think the dissents made some good points as well, and I might have structured the majority argument a bit differently.
It will be interesting to see what follows. The NRA plans to use the decision to challenge the municipal handgun bans in San Francisco, Chicago and some of the Chicago suburbs, among other places.
Funny thing is: I was planning to go to the gun store this afternoon and buy a couple guns, but I spent all afternoon reading this case so I don't have the time. It will have to wait.
They differed in that the majority held the right was not limited to that purpose, and was understood to encompass possessing firearms for other purposes such as self-defense and hunting. The minority believed that the framers intended the right solely for the purpose of militias.
Long guns could be kept, but had to be registered, and had to be stored disassembled or with trigger locks, with a couple of specific exceptions. None of the exceptions would make it feasible to use them for defense.
I have a problem with handgun bans because they don't work, and while they make people less safe, they infringe upon peoples' rights to defend themselves.
It's funny how Justice Breyer, in his dissent, cited the data that showed how crime went up in the District immediately after the ban and stayed elevated, and then cited other data showing crime rising immediately after gun bans in E.U. countries, and then made a weak point about how correlation does not mean causation, and maybe crime was going up with or without the bans. (Even if this was true, then if the bans were supposed to be effective in any way, then why did the District remain a crime haven?) It may be true that correlation does not equal causation, but when you take chronology into account, and where there's a clear pattern, ignoring the data is willful blindness.
I'm sure they will pass laws against concealed and open carry. That would be expected.
Of course, they can't pass a law that you can never possess a handgun outside of the house, because that would violate today's ruling. As a practical matter, making it illegal under all circumstances to possess a handgun outside of the home would make it illegal to transport a gun purchased for the purpose of self defense in the home from the store to your home. That would undercut today's ruling and would be struck down. So they'll probably just make some pretty heavy duty rules about handguns having to be unloaded, trigger locked, in a case, and inaccessible to the driver of a vehicle when they're being transported. They probably have rules like that already for long guns.
HOFer
See, I don't understand that rule for long guns. It's not like you can hide one in your pants...If you have a long gun, everyone knows you have it so why worry about having it in a case and all that?
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote