Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I've been explaining for 400 pages - go back and read them all.

exceptionally hard penalties is a good start - I would love to see people know that if they murder, they'll be caught and executed in a few months time. That Nikolas Cruz lives today is a travesty IMO and a disgrace to the memory of those he killed. That's a deterrent and it has merit but its not the only thing.

 

The bolded is the only concrete policy suggestion in your post and it is not only impossible from an investigatory standpoint but also so blatantly unconstitutional as to be literally impossible in our country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

words can change, all the time

when people attach words for political agenda

assault is an action ........ and my semi-auto Remington hunting rifle from 1970 isn't any more "assaulting" than it is "sleepy" or "accepting" or "tolerant"

its a gun - it doesn't do actions

oh ... its not a weapon of war either, and yet, its also high velocity, a very similar to what Beto said needed to be confiscated - and the Democrats and Liberals roared in applause at his words :(

No, in the context of an assault rifle it means a military assault, like storming a castle.  You really should stop trying to lie about this.  It’s become sad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

The bolded is the only concrete policy suggestion in your post and it is not only impossible from an investigatory standpoint but also so blatantly unconstitutional as to be literally impossible in our country.

start a thread, lets talk something "concrete" because if you, or anyone else thinks 60 million American's will voluntarily give their guns up when the Govt demands it? I don't think that's possible and in fact, its an impossibility and would create millions of "criminals" in the minds of BETO-ites

and unconstitutional is how millions would see that too

but again, start a thread, I'd love to ready what everyone things could be solutions to the violence in the USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, -fish- said:

No, in the context of an assault rifle it means a military assault, like storming a castle.  You really should stop trying to lie about this.  It’s become sad.

my .243 has never stormed anything .......... in fact, none of my guns have ever done anything on their own

they're incapable - they're inanimate objects

they don't jump or swim, they don't cure or attack, they don't assault and they don't cuddle ... you do understand that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

my .243 has never stormed anything .......... in fact, none of my guns have ever done anything on their own

they're incapable - they're inanimate objects

they don't jump or swim, they don't cure or attack, they don't assault and they don't cuddle ... you do understand that ?

In understand that you continue to lie and deflect.  Why haven’t you responded to two studies that showed the 1994 restriction (which wasn’t a ban) resulted in less deaths and injuries in mass shootings.  Why do you lie in nearly every post you make?  Your positions at so weak you can’t rely on facts or stay on topic.  Without fallacies, lies and deflection, you’re unable to make any point at all.  Where’s your grand plan to ending violence?   

Please respond without lying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

start a thread, lets talk something "concrete" because if you, or anyone else thinks 60 million American's will voluntarily give their guns up when the Govt demands it? I don't think that's possible and in fact, its an impossibility and would create millions of "criminals" in the minds of BETO-ites

and unconstitutional is how millions would see that too

but again, start a thread, I'd love to ready what everyone things could be solutions to the violence in the USA

This is the thread about shootings. Right here.  

I think it’s important to point out that you seem to believe that guns keep us free but are willing to give up your constitutional rights to fair trial and appeal in order to keep your guns. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -fish- said:

In understand that you continue to lie and deflect.  Why haven’t you responded to two studies that showed the 1994 restriction (which wasn’t a ban) resulted in less deaths and injuries in mass shootings.  Why do you lie in nearly every post you make?  Your positions at so weak you can’t rely on facts or stay on topic.  Without fallacies, lies and deflection, you’re unable to make any point at all.  Where’s your grand plan to ending violence?   

Please respond without lying.  

they are not studies I view as credible

same way you view the studies/reports pro-gun people post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

This is the thread about shootings. Right here.  

I think it’s important to point out that you seem to believe that guns keep us free but are willing to give up your constitutional rights to fair trial and appeal in order to keep your guns. 

you mean my support of red flag laws (if done properly) ?? 

you'd still get a fair trial

as for appeals? sure - 1 appeal is good but even then, in the cases like Nikloas Cruz ... why is he still alive ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

you mean my support of red flag laws (if done properly) ?? 

you'd still get a fair trial

as for appeals? sure - 1 appeal is good but even then, in the cases like Nikloas Cruz ... why is he still alive ?

No, I mean your support of killing someone within a few months of a murder. 

You cannot have a fair investigation, fair trial, and fair appeal within a few months. It’s not doable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

they are not studies I view as credible

same way you view the studies/reports pro-gun people post

There’s a difference between peer reviewed studies and “studies” conducted by lobbyists with no review.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

you mean my support of red flag laws (if done properly) ?? 

you'd still get a fair trial

as for appeals? sure - 1 appeal is good but even then, in the cases like Nikloas Cruz ... why is he still alive ?

Due process clause of the constitution.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

No, I mean your support of killing someone within a few months of a murder. 

You cannot have a fair investigation, fair trial, and fair appeal within a few months. It’s not doable. 

I disagree

Nikolas Cruz is 100% guilty, there is no doubt. Do you disagree ?

How do you view that? Whatever exists that will see him alive 20 years from now, and millions of millions spent in legal fee's and prison fee's for him and he's treated in prison better than homeless, better than some vets .............. yes, I personally think that is a disgrace and criminals know that "death row" is really 25 years out. 

I think that's a negative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, -fish- said:

There’s a difference between peer reviewed studies and “studies” conducted by lobbyists with no review.  

self justification - you're good at that 

 

10 hours ago, -fish- said:

Due process clause of the constitution.  

if we can change the constitution about guns, we can change it to make it anything "we" want can't "we" ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

self justification - you're good at that 

 

if we can change the constitution about guns, we can change it to make it anything "we" want can't "we" ??

Again, you’re offering to give up due process in exchange for getting to keep your guns. That makes it pretty clear that the guns aren’t about protecting your freedom.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

self justification - you're good at that 

 

if we can change the constitution about guns, we can change it to make it anything "we" want can't "we" ??

Guns good, due process bad. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

The bolded is the only concrete policy suggestion in your post and it is not only impossible from an investigatory standpoint but also so blatantly unconstitutional as to be literally impossible in our country.

Colorado tried to expedite the process and to clarify the process by passing an expedited unitary appeal process of capital convictions.  Essentially all post trial motions were to be raised at once, and expeditiously. In my experience those motions which supposedly are required to be raised within months can go on for years.  I was responding to motions which should have, by statute, been raised in the unitary appeal 8 years later.

The process takes time, and from a defense perspective and a constitutional one, it probably should.  Attempts to streamline the process have mostly failed, though I do believe defendants abuse the process.  Of course, why not, when the option is death many wish to delay that day, I might. 

 

This I know, Nathan Dunlap, Sir Mario Owens and Robert Ray are still alive.  I believe they will all be alive when I retire from practice.  Their victims are long dead, not forgotten, but long dead, and they are still alive.  I have seen all with smiles on their faces from time to time and enjoying moments, if not overall enjoying incarceration.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, -fish- said:

No, in the context of an assault rifle it means a military assault, like storming a castle.  You really should stop trying to lie about this.  It’s become sad.

I never do this without first obtaining a holocaust cloak and receiving the benefit of the good wishes of Miracle Max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I never do this without first obtaining a holocaust cloak and receiving the benefit of the good wishes of Miracle Max.

Think it'll work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Again, you’re offering to give up due process in exchange for getting to keep your guns. That makes it pretty clear that the guns aren’t about protecting your freedom.  

 

6 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Guns good, due process bad. Got it.

If we have guns, who the hell needs due process. Just shoot the prosecutor. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Colorado tried to expedite the process and to clarify the process by passing an expedited unitary appeal process of capital convictions.  Essentially all post trial motions were to be raised at once, and expeditiously. In my experience those motions which supposedly are required to be raised within months can go on for years.  I was responding to motions which should have, by statute, been raised in the unitary appeal 8 years later.

The process takes time, and from a defense perspective and a constitutional one, it probably should.  Attempts to streamline the process have mostly failed, though I do believe defendants abuse the process.  Of course, why not, when the option is death many wish to delay that day, I might. 

 

This I know, Nathan Dunlap, Sir Mario Owens and Robert Ray are still alive.  I believe they will all be alive when I retire from practice.  Their victims are long dead, not forgotten, but long dead, and they are still alive.  I have seen all with smiles on their faces from time to time and enjoying moments, if not overall enjoying incarceration.

And I’m not a fan of that. But I’m also not a fan of the process in other countries where a bad lawyer or bad judge or bad trial or bad legal system leads to a dead, innocent person and zero justice for the victims or their families.

We know people on death row have been exonerated. Over 140.  

If Kirk Bloodsworth is executed in a few months - or even a few years - the evidence is never retested for DNA matches and he isn’t exonerated. And Kimberley Shay Ruffner gets away with rape and murder.  

I find that result even less acceptable. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Again, you’re offering to give up due process in exchange for getting to keep your guns. That makes it pretty clear that the guns aren’t about protecting your freedom.  

why don't you tell me what you think about Nikolas Cruz? why avoid that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

This I know, Nathan Dunlap, Sir Mario Owens and Robert Ray are still alive.  I believe they will all be alive when I retire from practice.  Their victims are long dead, not forgotten, but long dead, and they are still alive.  I have seen all with smiles on their faces from time to time and enjoying moments, if not overall enjoying incarceration.

that angers me greatly :( and a clear indication of the failure of our judicial system IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

We know people on death row have been exonerated. Over 140.  

 

5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I find that result even less acceptable. 

 

it IS acceptable though to disarm American's ... who's choosing which right over another now ?  is it acceptable to have a judicial system that will see Nikloas Cruz alive in 2040 ?

explain that please, I'm really wanting to know how you justify that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

why don't you tell me what you think about Nikolas Cruz? why avoid that ?

Due process is needed to protect you from all sorts of things the government could do to you, even mundane things like fines for not cutting your grass sooner than the law requires.

I would really hope we wouldn't lose that simply because Nikolas Cruz is a piece of ####. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

why don't you tell me what you think about Nikolas Cruz? why avoid that ?

I think his trial starts January 2020. Precisely what I just said above about everyone else is what I think.  He’s entitled to a fair trial and a determination of mental competence.  

Might as well ask what you think about George Stinney, Jr., who was posthumously exonerated.

Stinney, age 14, was black and accused of raping and murdering two white girls.  Their bodies were found on March 23, 1944.  He was arrested March 24 and the police claimed he had confessed.

His trial took two and a half hours, and he was executed in June.  They had to sit him on a bible as a booster seat so he could reach the apparatus of the electric chair. 

A prominent white citizen, who had a family member on the coroner’s jury, confessed on his deathbed. 

 

That’s what happens in the legal system you’re suggesting. 

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

And I’m not a fan of that. But I’m also not a fan of the process in other countries where a bad lawyer or bad judge or bad trial or bad legal system leads to a dead, innocent person and zero justice for the victims or their families.

We know people on death row have been exonerated. Over 140.  

If Kirk Bloodsworth is executed in a few months - or even a few years - the evidence is never retested for DNA matches and he isn’t exonerated. And Kimberley Shay Ruffner gets away with rape and murder.  

I find that result even less acceptable. 

I was agreeing, essentially, with your point that expediting these matters is constitutionally difficult, if not impossible.  The process is far from ideal.  I just don't know of a more workable one, myself.  I want defendants to have full due process, within the limits of reason.  Sometimes I think reason flies out the window in these matters, but if one is to err it should be on the side of caution.  Being expeditious, while perhaps being desirable must take a back seat to accurate, to due process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

 

it IS acceptable though to disarm American's ... who's choosing which right over another now ?  is it acceptable to have a judicial system that will see Nikloas Cruz alive in 2040 ?

explain that please, I'm really wanting to know how you justify that 

I already did.  I don’t like that. I like innocent people being executed and murderers getting off Scott free as a result even less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I was agreeing, essentially, with your point that expediting these matters is constitutionally difficult, if not impossible.  The process is far from ideal.  I just don't know of a more workable one, myself.  I want defendants to have full due process, within the limits of reason.  Sometimes I think reason flies out the window in these matters, but if one is to err it should be on the side of caution.  Being expeditious, while perhaps being desirable must take a back seat to accurate, to due process.

Oh, I know. Just putting out my thoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

that angers me greatly :( and a clear indication of the failure of our judicial system IMO

Some, me included, do not think caution in such matters is a failure of our system.  That our system has the patience for caution, that our system has the strength to tolerate momentary happiness from the convicted, happiness that passes quickly in an overall punitive environment, shows that we are strong in the face of moments and emotion.  The system should remain stoic.  It is, at its core, a bulwark against unbridled emotion.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I think his trial starts January 2020. Precisely what I just said above about everyone else is what I think.  He’s entitled to a fair trial and a determination of mental competence.  

Might as well ask what you think about George Stinney, Jr., who was posthumously exonerated.

Stinney, age 14, was accused of raping and murdering two girls.  Their bodies were found on March 23, 1944.  He was arrested March 24 and the police claimed he has confessed.

His trial took two and a half hours, and he was executed in June.  They had to sit him on a bible as a booster seat so he could reach the apparatus of the electric chair. 

A prominent white citizen, who had a family member on the coroner’s team, confessed on his deathbed. 

 

That’s what happens in the legal system you’re suggesting. 

Had to use the bible, the yellow pages was not thick enough to raise him for a good connection.  Just as I was told as a child, the bible has something for almost any circumstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Due process is needed to protect you from all sorts of things the government could do to you, even mundane things like fines for not cutting your grass sooner than the law requires.

I would really hope we wouldn't lose that simply because Nikolas Cruz is a piece of ####. 

red flag laws violate due process in many ways ... are you in favor or those ?

some would argue having guns protect you from all sorts of things .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

That’s what happens in the legal system you’re suggesting. 

what is being proposed by Democrats is Govt confiscation of firearms that would impact literally tens of millions of legal, law abiding Americans

how do you feel about that ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have previously made the comment I am about to make to posters on the left.  Lately I am put in mind of it for posters leaning so far to the right that they are in danger of tipping over. 

If you hope to sway folks to your position do you believe that trying to bludgeon them with your position will accomplish that, or will it make those others become more retrenched in their position?  I find welcoming others to my way of thinking is more effective than trying to herd them under the lash to my positions.

Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

what is being proposed by Democrats is Govt confiscation of firearms that would impact literally tens of millions of legal, law abiding Americans

how do you feel about that ? 

I don’t have an issue with confiscation of property by government takings provided that the taking is rationally justifiable in relation to the goal sought and the citizen is properly compensated for the loss of property. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

red flag laws violate due process in many ways ... are you in favor or those ?

some would argue having guns protect you from all sorts of things .... 

Given gun owners don't have to be trained, tested or licensed, yes I'm in favor of those.

If gun owners were required to be trained, tested and licensed, then I would not, as the licensing would already state behavior that could cause the gun owner to lose their license to own one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

self justification - you're good at that 

 

if we can change the constitution about guns, we can change it to make it anything "we" want can't "we" ??

sure.   let's change the constitution about guns.   let me know when that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, -fish- said:

sure.   let's change the constitution about guns.   let me know when that happens.

I have long advocated that we need to address amending the 2nd amendment.  It is anachronistic in this day and age. I know forging consensus would be difficult.  It is suppose to be. That process though would be invaluable.  At some point partisanship and extreme positions must be put aside.  Sadly, in our country, as noted by Churchill, this will only happen after we have exhausted all other possibilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I don’t have an issue with confiscation of property by government takings provided that the taking is rationally justifiable in relation to the goal sought and the citizen is properly compensated for the loss of property. 

 

rationally justifiable .... why can't we use that in capital punishment cases like Nikolas Cruz ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I have long advocated that we need to address amending the 2nd amendment.  It is anachronistic in this day and age. I know forging consensus would be difficult.  It is suppose to be. That process though would be invaluable.  At some point partisanship and extreme positions must be put aside.  Sadly, in our country, as noted by Churchill, this will only happen after we have exhausted all other possibilities. 

I doubt it ever happens.  I think it is more likely that the country collapses before we could get ratification.  It's really time for a new constitutional convention to clean up the whole thing and enter the modern world, but that's not happening either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Given gun owners don't have to be trained, tested or licensed, yes I'm in favor of those.

If gun owners were required to be trained, tested and licensed, then I would not, as the licensing would already state behavior that could cause the gun owner to lose their license to own one.

what other things used as weapons would you want people to be trained on, licenses etc? 

and do you REALLY think if people had to train, test and license it would impact violence? I don't think you can believe that at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:

rationally justifiable .... why can't we use that in capital punishment cases like Nikolas Cruz ?

First, taking a life is a much more significant deprivation of a constitutional right than taking a gun.    Second, you have argued consistently that all mass shooters are mentally ill.    Are mentally ill people entitled to present evidence of the type and severity of their mental illness?   You can't argue that the 2nd amendment is inviolate while ignoring the 4th, 6th and 8th.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

what other things used as weapons would you want people to be trained on, licenses etc? 

Bazookas, tanks, etc... I wouldn't have a problem with people owning these if they were trained, tested and licensed on how to use and store them safely. 

58 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

and do you REALLY think if people had to train, test and license it would impact violence? I don't think you can believe that at all

Yes I do believe that. I think we would have a HUGE issue of automobile violence if people weren't required to be trained, tested and licensed to drive, especially if they didn't have to have stricter licensing requirements for CDL. Can you imagine if everyone had a constitutional right to drive an 18 wheeler? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

rationally justifiable .... why can't we use that in capital punishment cases like Nikolas Cruz ?

Because if you could describe what I said with two words I wouldn’t have used a whole sentence. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

what other things used as weapons would you want people to be trained on, licenses etc? 

and do you REALLY think if people had to train, test and license it would impact violence? I don't think you can believe that at all

Aren’t you the one who says concealed carry permit holders aren’t the violent criminals?

Aren’t they the ones who train, test, and license?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

First, taking a life is a much more significant deprivation of a constitutional right than taking a gun.    Second, you have argued consistently that all mass shooters are mentally ill.    Are mentally ill people entitled to present evidence of the type and severity of their mental illness?   You can't argue that the 2nd amendment is inviolate while ignoring the 4th, 6th and 8th.   

forfeiting a life - that's what murderers do when they choose

I do submit that mass killers are mentally ill - serial killers are mass murderers, they just do it one at a time and avoid being caught.

you can't argue that its ok to infringe greatly on the 2nd and leave the 4th, 6th and 8th in its purest form can you ?

I'm saying - in cases like Nikolas Cruz? He should have already been executed for this crimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

 I think we would have a HUGE issue of automobile violence if people weren't required to be trained, tested and licensed to drive, especially if they didn't have to have stricter licensing requirements for CDL. Can you imagine if everyone had a constitutional right to drive an 18 wheeler? 

so there is not a huge issue with automobiles after people ARE trained, tested and licensed?  IIRC 15% and more in some states drive without a license or insurance. 35,000 dead every year, hundreds of thousands injured and billions in damages. That's how you want guns to be? really ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Aren’t you the one who says concealed carry permit holders aren’t the violent criminals?

Aren’t they the ones who train, test, and license?

they are not criminals at all - that's a fact

its not just them ... every person who hunts and owns a semi-auto .243 rifle ... they're not the problems either and millions of hours afield every year see's exceptionally few accidents .... and the Govt isn't involved in the training or licensing of shooting those are they? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

what is being proposed by Democrats is Govt confiscation of firearms that would impact literally tens of millions of legal, law abiding Americans

how do you feel about that ? 

What if we went to war with China and or Russia and we suffered some defeats while destroying those Chinese man made militarized islands in the Pacific? I would want  as many AR15s in our civilians hands as possible. Freedom begins and ends with gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.