peacefuljeffrey

Quote

Quote

They may have done it so that they had a law they could say they were enforcing, but I'd like you to show me where in the constitution any rights guaranteed to Americans were done so only to white Americans.

-

Article IV, US Constitution:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Seemed to have denied rights to blacks.

It said "black" there? Where? Where?

-

Quote

Hey, I know how to settle this. Let's conduct a poll:

___ Kill him.

___ Give him candy.

LMAO!

Candy always works. It's too bad they hadn't invented candy before Hitler came to power.

-

Taking a who at what? What on earth are you talking about?


-

Quote

Quote

The key is to make one or two sentence posts that provoke your antagonists into wasting THEIR time on long replies.

Given the choice, I'd rather have real debate than fuck with my opponents.

They call that difference "integrity."

-

Quote

Quote

Funny, I read an interview with him in the NRA's magazine, and he sure didn't sound like a stark-raving lunatic there. Are you alleging that the entire interview was a fabrication and therefore a fraud?

Can't speak for the article in the NRA mag, but Martin was diagnosed as suffering from a "paranoid personality disorder" and relied upon this fact at court, which put him away after effectively fining him criminally insane. That is not the sort of person who I would choose to be the darling of my organization.

Fine, we'll use Hale Demar, who saved his family from an intruder and then was charged because he was in Chicago, which did not recognize that he has a right to have a gun.

As I recall, they ended up dropping the charges against him. Don't hold me to that; I have to look it up.

-

Quote

[
Put up or shut up Jeffrey. Show us data from a credible source.

How about we start with an article from the Beeb? Okay?

It says something about crimes against the person up 17%, and while it also says that MINISTERS claimed the increase is (in part) due to different reporting methods, I'd wager it's about a lot more than that. And didn't someone say something about how politicians circle wagons, and those out of power play up the current problems and those in power play down problems, and usually both are full of shit?

Well, this was politicians in power claiming it's just different reporting methods behind a crime wave. Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

-

Quote

jeffrey you fail to recognize one thing...people in the UK who own guns ARE viewed as lunatics who are on the fringes of society...by the POLICE in particular

after the incident my friend was involved in, the cops were more interested in him than the criminals he stopped!...

Well, I know I have no credibility and all, but I would venture a guess that your friend is in that situation because they're all fuckin INSANE over there!

-

Quote

Good news. At least some of the money has been recovered. Was found at Ashford International Hotel, Ashford, Kent, UK which is area I live and also police. Multiple vehicles involved recovered and its not believed they used the rail link to get to the continent. I think its only a matter of time. Already number of arrestst made

They probably all rushed out like in Goodfellas and bought Cadillac Coupe De Villes! Raised eyebrows among those who knew them and all that. "Oi, Kevin, what's the deal, mate? Where'd you score the fancy wheels?"

-

"Oh we're never gonna surviiiive, unless
we get a little craaaazy!"


-

Quote

>No one had to make law to say it was permissible for blacks to go to school with whites . . .

Google "desegregation" and then see if you still think no one had to make a law to desegregate schools.

They may have done it so that they had a law they could say they were enforcing, but I'd like you to show me where in the constitution any rights guaranteed to Americans were done so only to white Americans.

There was no basis in laws that are constitutional by which to deny any rights to blacks.

Thus there was no actual need to pass laws that gave them the right to marry whites or to go to school with them.

Either way, did the USSC write a law? Did Congress write a law? How was the actual issue decided? Did the USSC simply strike down segregation laws? That's not the same as "making law."

-

Quote

Quote

No one can claim that gays are denied the right to skydive, and so must descend (heehee) on a dropzone en masse in order to assert their rights.

Ummm.... the dropzone was involved from the beginning and supported the idea.

All the more reason why gay people don't actually need to "bring out the gay" to the DZ to make sure they are accepted. As you say, they are evidently quite well accepted.

I thought people were saying that this was a good idea because gay people aren't able to feel comfortable flirting on the 364 other "straight" days at the dropzone...

(Naturally, I don't agree that there is anything "straight" about the other days at the DZ; but to hear people tell it, gays are SOL for being welcome unless they make a special event just for them -- to which everyone who might normally show up is just as welcome to be there anyway, like on any other day.)


-

Quote

> finding something is not in the law,

There was no law that said blacks had to go to school with whites.

The issue was that blacks wanted to go to school and have the same educational opportunities and resources as whites, but they were not being allowed to, was it not?

No one had to make law to say it was permissible for blacks to go to school with whites -- they had to find that it was NOT lawful to PROHIBIT them from so doing.

Quote

The Supreme Court reversed all that. It defied local law and made new law.

>which is to proscribe behavior . . .

Pretty much all laws do that.

Laws do that. Laws are written by legislatures, not by judges. This is the basic heart of my argument, here, Bill: that the judge overstepped his powers and made law rather than applying law.

And the USSC is not supposed to MAKE law, either. It is supposed to interpret whether legislature-made laws are constitutional and enforceable or not.

-

Quote

(edited to add pic)

I am totally at a loss.

I have read stories in all kinds of different print and online newspapers that cite a rise in violent crime in England, and in fact your nameless, faceless graph (which for all anyone knows you could have printed up yourself in a very basic program) is the only source I have ever seen for a claim that is 180 degrees opposite of numerous news sources' claims.

How do you account for that? Your claim is the diametric opposite of everything else out there.

-

Quote

The most glaring error comes next in that the author states "And it was never reasonable to defend property with force." Again this is wholly incorrect. They are actually citing the 1967 legislation in that very paragraph but they cannot even get the basic text of the act correct.

The act most certainly does cover the use of force in defence of property, as does the common law. I suspect here the author has confused them self with the rules surrounding the use of lethal force in defence of property. Killing to protect chattels has indeed been judged never to be reasonable – I guess the courts feel that TV's simply aren't worth that much. Everything up to killing however is open season.

Well of course he was talking about lethal force. If you point a gun at someone, you are considered to be using LETHAL FORCE from that moment on. You shoot someone but hit him only in the thigh, you used lethal force on him. It is not as though the force is "lethal" only if you end up killing him. So I don't know why you threw in the red herring that you could use (plain ol') "force" to defend property.

Quote

Now, aside from the fact that the article keeps saying that there is no right to self defence in England or that it is continually being eroded (whereas the truth is that the right is as strong as ever and has remained materially unchanged throughout the last century... as I point out at length in my first couple of posts in this thread) another big problem with the article is the authors consistent misuse of violent crime statistics.

What of the claims made that Brits are prohibited from carrying anything that can be construed to be designed as a weapon (offensive or defensive, since anything that can be used defensively can ergo be used offensively with ease)?

Isn't that like saying, "Sure, there's no prohibition against skydiving, but we'll arrest you if we see you in possession of a rig, an altimeter, and anything else you might need to use to skydive."

Quote

In fact at the end of the day Tony Martin himself was found not guilty of the crime with which he was charged!

Yes, you read right; Tony Martin was found not guilty of the murder with which he was charged...

That's news to me. What I have read (repeatedly) is that he was initially convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Then on appeal his murder conviction was reversed, and he was sentenced to five years in prison for manslaughter.

You're saying that someone made a complete and utter lie about something so objectively either true or false? And that it's been repeated as often as it has in online newspapers for the last umpteen years?

Quote

The truth is he was put away not because the law on self defence failed some poor farmer simply trying to protect his property from burglars but because he was a self confessed mentally deranged lunatic who was danger to anyone who came near him and admitted he would kill again if given the chance.

The story as I read it was that the police had utterly failed to do Mr. Martin, out there in his lonely rural farmhouse, any good at all in putting an end to the burglaries and vandalism at his place. Something like 12 burglaries had occurred.

You and I were not there, and did not see what transpired when he confronted the burglars that final time. Suffice it to say that Mr. Martin felt justified in shooting.

If I were to feel the slightest sorrow for the miscreants who were shot and/or killed that night, I would first demand to know why the fuck they were on Mr. Martin's property, and whether they were perhaps the criminals, minors though they may have been (as though minors cannot be dangerous?) who had victimized him before.

For the simple reason that Mr. Martin had experienced zero success via the police investigating his burglaries, and the fact that he faced THREE young men that night, I offer that perhaps it is inaccurate to characterize Mr. Martin as an unrepentent, cold-blooded killer, so much as a person who feels he WAS threatened, WAS justified in using deadly force to defend himself, and of course he would say he would do the same thing under the same circumstances again.

Funny, I read an interview with him in the NRA's magazine, and he sure didn't sound like a stark-raving lunatic there. Are you alleging that the entire interview was a fabrication and therefore a fraud?

Quote

Take my advice – stop gun and self defence advocates trying to associate people like you and me with people like Tony Martin – he's really is not someone who I want used as a pin-up for me!

I prefer to leave personalities out of it. The man lived in a remote farmhouse and had been the victim of repeated burglaries. I myself would probably, upon realizing that the police were impotent, take it as my own responsibility to see to my own protection.

-

Quote

Quote

Yeah, you just aren't allowed to carry or be in possession of any implement designed for self defense.

Carry a knife for self defense, or even a kubotan, and you can and probably will be arrested.

That leaves you with your bare hands if you're attacked, and then you might be able to improvise a weapon on the spur of the moment.

-

We don't really need to use guns as self defense in the uk. We depend on our bodies. Come to Dublin and i will show you

Show me what?

Are you a badass who can take on an able-bodied young male who has a knife, and be assured that you won't get cut severely, if not maimed or killed?

And if so, are you representative of a 120 lb. woman, or a 72-year-old man? Should they be forced to either get to be as tough as you are, or just get used to being picked on by criminals?

Quote

We don't really need to use guns as self defense in the uk. We depend on our bodies.

Just who are you speaking for?? Everyone in British/Irish society who might face an attacker?

-

Quote

Your concern for the people of our little island is really touching and as an American, you're, no doubt, cognisant that prohibition probably never works. It simply drives such underlying activities into the hands of rouges and villains.

It's never (in living memory) been legal for arms to be carried in public, so they could not be used to protect citizens or to Take-Down badies. So, the legislation against guns would never have affected gun crime in the U.K - neither for nor against.

As has been argued by John Rich (many atime) it simply served to hit law abiding sports shooters (in the main).

.

That's what I see as part of the problem. Even though perhaps not many Brits would opt to carry a defensive pistol, the ones who would like to (possibly women who have survived rape and don't want to go through it again, or men who have survived brutal robberies accompanied by beatings who don't want to let their lives be risked again) are prohibited from making that choice.

How would we ever know how many Brits would jump at the chance to arm themselves defensively if the law would allow it?

Are you going to say that the reason the law doesn't allow for it is because the people don't want that right and so don't campaign for such a law? I would say that's a leap that can't be substantiated or verified. It might be simply because they feel there is little or no chance to get that law changed. Either way, the result is no one gets to find out how well-received the right to carry a gun would be in England.

To me, it flies in the face of logic and human nature that people want to have to rely on police to intervene if they are attacked. Who really is naive enough to believe that the police swoop in just in the nick of time to save people from criminal attack?

Maybe, like happens in the U.S., if England passed right-to-carry laws, the effect would snowball, and crime victims would have a chance to fight back against their attackers, rather than cry out for help that won't arrive, or hand over what they've worked hard to earn, or worse, pray that they won't be hurt too badly, or that the attacker will just hurt them but not kill them.

-

Quote

>The judge could either say that he feels the law is right or it's wrong,
>but this fucker is WRITING THE LAW.

Yep. Sorta like the Supreme Court did when they said that blacks could marry whites, or that blacks could go to the same schools as whites did. Damn activist judges!

I think there is a distinct difference between finding something in the law, finding something is not in the law, and what this guy did, which is to proscribe behavior, akin to making the law that governs executions and how they are to be performed, even though writing law is not in his purview.

I sure wish Lawrocket were here to straighten this out.

-

Quote

Don't forget the thinly veiled hostility

Wendy W.

Yep, there it is, showin' its face again!

-

Quote

Oh yes. I am quite belligerent.

People told me that something about the gay boogie must really bother me just because I pursued the thread I started about it.

I wonder what that logic, applied to your continuing to refer to my labeling you "belligerent," says about you. It really got under your skin, huh?

-

Quote

What I mean is, when I post in here, I get all worked up and my heartrate goes up and my blood pressure rises and I get all mad and in a bad mood. In fact, I am not sure why I ever post in SC becuase of how worked up I get.

Do you "regular" SC posters get that way, or can you just stay calm and it doesn't affect you?

It doesn't really affect me. No, my heart rate doesn't go appreciably up, nor does my blood pressure rise (at least, not so I would notice these things without being hooked up to monitors).

Sure, I get mentally agitated. But it's not like it sends me out of control yelling and cussing and stuff. That stuff may come out through my fingers, but the neighbors don't hear any of it.

And of course there will be those who will say I'm full of shit and that I have to get all steamed up and red-in-the-face. Sorry to disappoint anyone if they had expectations.

In fact, I wasn't even going to come into this thread until someone sent me a private message linking me to it.

-

Quote

Quote

Quote

These laws may actualy work! We have changed hardly anything for guns except just for peope to have them is registered. This country is the most violent, high crime country in the world.

You think that England simply called for registration of guns?

That was in effect since the EARLY 20TH CENTURY.

Your country has not legislated the registering of guns -- it has BANNED THEIR OWNERSHIP except for a tiny sliver of what, small caliber single-shot rifles and shotguns.

You don't exhibit a strong knowledge or understanding of the state of the laws there.

-

Ya, the small tiny guns are the ones who are used the most in crime in this country. You said earlier that the "assult weapons" are hardly the result of crime. Gee I wonder why. Maybe because they are not easly to get?

For christ's sake PLEASE pay attention. So-called "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of gun crime in the U.S. -- despite there being MILLIONS of them.

I was never talking about assault weapons being used in England.

Please explain why ANY guns are easy to get in an island country -- and they are, in England, if you're a criminal who hangs out with other criminals and knows the channels from where the illegal gun supply flows.

And if criminals who want them can get them (3 million of them), please tell me why it was necessary to take them away from GOOD people when the criminals show they still will get them anyway.

-

Quote

The state then proposed to execute Morales with a massive dose of the barbiturate sodium pentothal, which officials said would render him unconscious quickly and kill him within 30 to 45 minutes.

But Tuesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel imposed further conditions to minimize the risk of a botched and painful execution: The drug would have to be administered by a licensed professional and injected directly into Morales' vein, rather than flow through an intravenous tube from outside the death chamber, meaning that the person giving the injection would have to be in the chamber with Morales.
---------------------------------
no, I think he made sure it couldn't happen.

Something stinks here:

From where, exactly, is it that a judge is supposed to get his power to tell exactly how an execution is to be performed? Would that not be a legislative duty?!

The judge could either say that he feels the law is right or it's wrong, but this fucker is WRITING THE LAW.

-

Quote

[Some medical evidence found that the current drug cocktail injection procedure might induce several minutes of excruciating pain before unconsciousness or death. That's basically torturing a person to death. Now aside from the question of whether the sonofabitch might morally have that coming (let's not go off on that tangent right now), if that would actually happen, most judges (even conservative ones) would say that a death essentially by torture is unconstitutionally cruel & unusual.

So fuck all this lethal-injection crap, and let's go for INSTANT DEATH which cannot possibly cause "excruciating pain." Bring back firing squads! Why were they ever abandoned? When something like 10 or 20 high caliber rifle bullets hit you in the span of a second, you don't suffer. Hell, I think they even give you a cigarette to smoke while they put you down! That's right kinder than a murderer even deserves.

One can try to make a case that standing there waiting to be shot to death is "cruel." But apart from the fact that a condemned person should not be able to claim that knowledge of the fact that he's going to be executed constitutes "cruelty," if this were the uniform way in which a state conducted executions, it would not be "unusual" (especially given that it has been used historically), so since it doesn't meet the "AND test," it's not unconstitutional.

Thanks for your clarification -- I had not yet availed myself of the "full story."

It sounds like we should fault the state of California for simply being disingenuous about whether they truly do engage the death penalty or not. It seems they scuttled their own plan to carry out this guy's sentence.

It'd be like a guy who doesn't want to get married saying up and down right until the day that he was to marry that he did indeed want to, and then all the while he knew that he had not booked the preacher, the hall or the limo.

California's got some real good "leaders" there. If those assholes want to be against the death penalty, then fuckin' SAY so -- don't say you're gonna do it and then deliberately sabotage it from happening.


When I had a colonoscopy, they injected me with some white milky stuff in my hand, and in about five or ten seconds, I was totally unconscious. No pain except the needle stick and a little "burning" sensation where the fluid goes in.

Someone please tell me why the fuck they can't use THAT STUFF to knock out a prisoner, and then for all the murderer can feel, they could chop off his fuckin' toes and let him bleed to death that way and he'd never feel shit as far as pain. Totally humane. Or how about we keep it simple: give him that stuff they gave me, and then add about a gallon more.

Problem fuckin' solved, you idiot California people!

-

Quote

Quote

Anyway, I have found online published studies that indicate you are six times more likely to be mugged

What's the pedigree of that data?

I can find online published studies to support lots of stuff. But until the pedigree is shared, it's just bullshit.

Wendy W.

It was part of some UN thing -- I'll have to find the link.

-

Quote

These laws may actualy work! We have changed hardly anything for guns except just for peope to have them is registered. This country is the most violent, high crime country in the world.

You think that England simply called for registration of guns?

That was in effect since the EARLY 20TH CENTURY.

Your country has not legislated the registering of guns -- it has BANNED THEIR OWNERSHIP except for a tiny sliver of what, small caliber single-shot rifles and shotguns.

You don't exhibit a strong knowledge or understanding of the state of the laws there.

-