Update: felony charges - Page 13

Donkey® · 07-26-2007, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

1st. My right to own firearms to protect myself are constitutional and should, by law, outweigh any subsequent legislation requiring me to lock them up. A locked up gun is not suitable for personal defense, therefore, it infringes upon my rights to defend myself.

No, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

2nd. In this particular case, the state is seeking justice for the actions of criminals from the victim. Laws like this need to be abolished (as do many laws on the books in most states).

No, they are punishing a person for breaking a law. They will punish the burglars if they catch them as well.

WickedLou9 · 07-26-2007, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

No, it doesn't.

No, they are punishing a person for breaking a law. They will punish the burglars if they catch them as well.

People don't understand that none of their rights are absolute. There are exceptions to everything. even freedom of speech, the core of our democracy, can be restricted in some rare cases.

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2007, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

People don't understand that none of their rights are absolute. There are exceptions to everything. even freedom of speech, the core of our democracy, can be restricted in some rare cases.

That doesn't seem to be a stance that liberals take on cases like freedom of speech et al.

Thorgrim · 07-26-2007, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That doesn't seem to be a stance that liberals take on cases like freedom of speech et al.

Clarify

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2007, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Clarify

Well, Wickedlou just went off about how nothing is absolute:

People don't understand that none of their rights are absolute. There are exceptions to everything. even freedom of speech, the core of our democracy, can be restricted in some rare cases.

However, there are many a time, even on this board, where liberals beat their chests to the fact that 'the constitution says so' and there can't be anything else that defies it. The freedom of speech issue is a big one, where liberals, under the guise of freedom of speech, believe they can do and say anything they want, no matter who it hurts, even if it's giving up national security. Why do they do this? 'because the Constitution says so, and it's absolute'.

I find it interesting now that as Thomas Crown makes a statement, Wickedlou is quick to say that nothing is absolute...it just tends to go against the regular liberal mantra the the Constitution means everything.

Thorgrim · 07-26-2007, 06:35 PM

I guess you've missed how many liberals, some of them judges, who have wanted to restrict "anti-ethnic hate speech"

avsp · 07-27-2007, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

1st. My right to own firearms to protect myself are constitutional and should, by law, outweigh any subsequent legislation requiring me to lock them up. A locked up gun is not suitable for personal defense, therefore, it infringes upon my rights to defend myself.

Does the constitution explictly say that the guns are specifically to defend ones self?

It talks of the right to bear arms, So presumably once you get home you can unlock your gun & walk around your house with it.

Whilst you arent at home & you've left guns there how are they defending you if you've not taken one with you? Are the guns then not for defence?

Can someone clarify if its legal in MA to wlk about ones own home with a gun?

2nd. In this particular case, the state is seeking justice for the actions of criminals from the victim. Laws like this need to be abolished (as do many laws on the books in most states).

No, the state isnt. The fact that the law discovered b2ws lapse in the manner that they did does not make b2w's lapse a crime. It still would've been a crime if I'd seen he'd not got his guns locked up & then grassed him up.

I suspect that you chose to see the reality of the situation as you state in order to justify your position on laws in general.

IMO guns should be locked up, to prevent their misuse by kids & theft because of their specific nature.

If some breaks into my house & steals my toaster & then strangles someone with the flex then the killing is 'up close & personal' & takes some time. A gun killing takes place in an instant & is much less immediately 'personal'. It is in this aspect of guns 'dangerousness' that singles them out for speciial legal attention.

Lastly I think b2w should 'do the rounds' of the net & ensure that others who've made the same error that he has are alerted to the situation, (but then again maybe he already has).

p.s. hi mom

ballz2wallz · 07-27-2007, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

Can someone clarify if its legal in MA to wlk about ones own home with a gun?

Yes, it is legal, as long as you have the permit to have guns in your home to begin with.

p.s. hi mom

WickedLou9 · 07-27-2007, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Well, Wickedlou just went off about how nothing is absolute:

However, there are many a time, even on this board, where liberals beat their chests to the fact that 'the constitution says so' and there can't be anything else that defies it. The freedom of speech issue is a big one, where liberals, under the guise of freedom of speech, believe they can do and say anything they want, no matter who it hurts, even if it's giving up national security. Why do they do this? 'because the Constitution says so, and it's absolute'.

I find it interesting now that as Thomas Crown makes a statement, Wickedlou is quick to say that nothing is absolute...it just tends to go against the regular liberal mantra the the Constitution means everything.

The 1st ammendment is the highest ammendment and yes, in almost every case your right can not be infringed. There is a test that has to be used to determine if the government can infrigne on that right.
1) Is there a substantial government interest involved in prohibiting the speech
2) Is this intrest directly accomplished by prohibiting the speech
3) Is there any other way by which the same goal can be accomplished.

You have to pass all of these tests before free speech can be infringed upon.
Because the 1st ammendment is considered the core to a democratic process, it's held in the highest regard and there are much stricter rules about regulating it. Are there cases where free speech can be regulated? yes. of course, but they are rare.

Not all rights are equal either. The test to deprive someone of due process is much less stringent than the 1st ammendment test.

I think that this is all tangent to the issue though. I don't think that I have ever asserted that the bill of rights is absolute and can not be infringed upon for any reason. I might have said that the government was unjustified in thier infringement in some cases however.

P.S. Since when are liberals the only ones who believe in the constituition? That's a rather odd statement to make.

ballz2wallz · 07-27-2007, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

P.S. Since when are liberals the only ones who believe in the constituition? That's a rather odd statement to make.

They aren't...as given by Republicans and the 2nd amendment.

However, liberals are often first to want to limit or get rid of 2nd amendment, saying the Constitution is fallible and not absolute, and in the next breath to say that the 1st amendment is solid, and since it's in the Constitution, it means everything, and it's absolute. I've seen it on this board several times.

I find it humorous. Especially given your most recent post saying that it's not absolute. It was out of the ordinary. May I save that post for future use?

WickedLou9 · 07-27-2007, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

They aren't...as given by Republicans and the 2nd amendment.

However, liberals are often first to want to limit or get rid of 2nd amendment, saying the Constitution is fallible and not absolute, and in the next breath to say that the 1st amendment is solid, and since it's in the Constitution, it means everything, and it's absolute. I've seen it on this board several times.

I find it humorous. Especially given your most recent post saying that it's not absolute. It was out of the ordinary. May I save that post for future use?

Please do. If i'm being a hipocrite, by all means point it out to me.

thomez · 07-27-2007, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

Does the constitution explictly say that the guns are specifically to defend ones self?

It talks of the right to bear arms,

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.

WickedLou9 · 07-27-2007, 05:48 PM

It helps to look at the constituion within the context that it was written. Most of the bill of rights was established with the goal of preventing a tyranical government from taking and maintaining control. Freedom of speech means that you can't supress those that don't agree with you. Freedom of assembly means that we can get together and talk about how the tyrant needs to go. Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure prevents the government from turning the country into a police state and thus making a rebellion impossible.
Right to bear arms should, in this context, be an obvious necessity.

ballz2wallz · 07-27-2007, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It helps to look at the constituion within the context that it was written. Most of the bill of rights was established with the goal of preventing a tyranical government from taking and maintaining control. Freedom of speech means that you can't supress those that don't agree with you. Freedom of assembly means that we can get together and talk about how the tyrant needs to go. Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure prevents the government from turning the country into a police state and thus making a rebellion impossible.
Right to bear arms should, in this context, be an obvious necessity.

Then there are those that believe the forefathers had the foresight to write something that would always be relevant, no matter what context it is.

WickedLou9 · 07-28-2007, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Then there are those that believe the forefathers had the foresight to write something that would always be relevant, no matter what context it is.

I agree and that is exactly why they provided the mechanism for ammending the constitution. The only way you can apply an existing law or statute to a new situation is by examning the intent and reasoning behind the law and then applying that same reasoning to the new situation.