Justice?

[el_gato]

[skippythwndrdog]

1. An image is worth...

powerful.

[hansberrym]

2. Who are we to question ? Don't you know that only a judge can

decide whether that was justice or not?


If a judge says that it is OK for policemen to put their guns in the faces of defenseless teenagers, then that is the law, and we can not question it. After all, the fourth amendment only protects the right of the people collectively to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, it has nothing to do with individuals. The state must be free from the prying eyes of the public, the press, and other troublemakers such as the ACLU and NRA in order for it to effectively protect us. If you want to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, become a legislator. You should be in jail for posting that slander against The Leader.


The rest of us should just feel safer knowing we have such strong and decisive leaders in Goose Creek and in the White House :)


I love big brother, what's wrong with you?

[MrBenchley]

3. Thank koresh we've got half-hysterical RKBAers

to sit around and attack liberals with outright lies...don't know what we'd do without the constant droppings of outright horseshit.

"such strong and decisive leaders in Goose Creek and in the White House"
Gee, hans, isn't it swell to have the gun lobby fighting hard and spending millions to keep AshKKKroft and his goon squad in power? But sure is inspiring to see the way our "pro gun democrats" are making the case for Kerry/Edwards on those gun owner online forums every da-.oh that's right, they got nothing but excuses as to why they can't do THAT.

And since we brought up Goose Creek, South Carolina is lousy with gun loony groups and self-styled "militias"...wonder where any of them did anything about it. I know the "anti-gun" ACLU and "anti-gun" Jesse Jackson spoke out and fought for the student;s rights.

[hansberrym]

4. Hold on there pardner, you seem to going off half-cocked again

The post obviously made fun of BUSH! How could you misunderstand that?


Are you really so far gone that you thought I was praising Bush?

Perhaps you missed the posts where I pointed out that Kerry has taken the sensible position that the second amendment protects the right of individual's and he should be supported for that. (I think that was the same post where you said Kerry was only trying to fool people)


The NRA got itself in a lot of trouble the last time they spoke out about Jack-booted thugs. They were right then, but if they have been silent on Goose Creek and the patriot act, then they are wrong to clam up just because their guy is in office.


You seem to check out their website quite often, what has the NRA been saying about the Patriot Act?


I agree with you that the NRA's unwavering support of Bush should be lambasted, lampooned, whatever since bush and ashcroft really are
not standing up for guns owner's rights in any way other than lip service, while at the same time they are running the country down in countless other ways.

[Romulus]

5. obviously another "attack on Kerry"

:crazy:

[MrBenchley]

7. You see one of those, rom?

Weird...all I saw was the usual dreary, fact-free hysteria that characterizes the RKBAers.

[MrBenchley]

6. Gee, hans...the gun lobby is all FOR this unelected turd...

and has spent millions attacking Democrats. Or are you denying that?

"The NRA got itself in a lot of trouble the last time they spoke out about Jack-booted thugs. They were right then"
So just to get this straight: the NRA is all right wihen it sticks up for cop killers.....hokay.

[hansberrym]

9. I don't think jesse jackson was standing up for drug use ,

He was denouncing the police state tactics employeed. Nor was the NRA standing up for Koresh, they were denouncing the police state tactics of the government.

If one of those cops had been killed by one of those students, would that justify the ridiculous show of force, or would it simply highlight the utter foolishness of sticking a gun in someone's face without a damn good reason?


If that were one of your children being held at gunpoint would you still be making happy about it?

[MrBenchley]

10. Wow, hans, nobody said that about Jesse Jackson....

But the NRA was certainly standing up for Koresh...as do gun loonies all over the web. He's their little tin messiah.

So tell us, what DID the gun loonies in S.C. have to say about Goose Creek? We know what the "anti-gun" liberals had to say.

[hansberrym]

12. That is exactly my point Bench. No one would be silly enough...

to claim that Jesse Jackson was standing up for drug use when he was denouncing the police state tactics at Goose Creek HS, except maybe some hysterical anti-Jesse extremist. Nor would any rational person conclude that the NRA was standing up for Koresh when they referred to those involved in the WACO action as "jackbooted thugs".

One does not have to agree with or support the person or activity that the government rightfully seeks to crack down on, in order to disagree with the tactics that the government employs.

I would guess that Jesse Jackson is against drug use, but that he disgrees with the tactics used.

It is also clear that the NRA is against the mis-use of firearms, specifically the illegal conversion to full-auto that Koresh was accused of, while at the same time they denounce the police state tactics employed at Waco.

[MrBenchley]

13. What is exactly your point....that your slur against Jesse didn't work?

"Nor would any rational person conclude that the NRA was standing up for Koresh when they referred to those involved in the WACO action as "jackbooted thugs". "
Why the fuck not? Do please try and tell us that the NRA doesn't have people with ties to nutcase militia groups on their board, hans....

And by the way, I guess your response means that the "freedom" loving gun rights groups in South Carolina didn't say dick about Goose Creek.

[hansberrym]

14. My point - Only a hysterical extremist would think that criticism

of the governments actions ("jackbooted thugs" in the case of NRA regarding Waco, or Jesse's denouncing the police state actions at Goose Creek) amounts to support of the activity or person that the government rightfully sought to investigate, but then went way overboard in its actions.


I am amazed at some people's capacity for making illogical arguments. My lack of knowledge regarding the NRA's actions regarding Goose Creek doesn't justify any conclusion on your part as to what those actions were. Nor did my statements in any way slur Jesse Jackson, but then only a hysterical extremist would think so.


(you said)
And by the way, I guess your response means that the "freedom" loving gun rights groups in South Carolina didn't say dick about Goose Creek.
(end quote)

You might take note that it was a gun rights supporter who posted this thread.


What did the NRA say about Goose Creek? A simple search NRA goose Creek SC turned up this
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=3258


edited to add above link

[MrBenchley]

15. Gee, hans, many people found the NRA's comment offensive

and the NRA has ties for nutcase extremist groups..

"I am amazed at some people's capacity for making illogical arguments."
Yeah, hans...tell max and me about it.

[hansberrym]

16. I also thought the comment a bit insensitive considering

the injuries and loss of life by officers who were not the ones calling the shots. Something needed to be said about the excessive use of force, but the NRA could have weighed their words much better.




What do you think of an argument in which someone says that the Supreme Court's ruling in Miller did not equate the words/phrases:

"possession or use of a shotgun...." to

"keep and bear such an instrument" and to

"keep and bear arms"


while in the very same argument, that very same person uses the words "keep and bear" to mean possession or use himself?



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=86079&mesg_id=88252&page=

The Miller decision says quite plainly that the Second Amendment can only be applied and interpreted with the end in view of continuing and rendering effective the militia. There is no such case law limitation on the right of peaceful assembly that I am aware of. If you are aware of one, please cite it. Otherwise, there's no argument to be made that the right of states to support their militias by allowing potential militia members to keep and bear arms is equivalent to the right to peacefully assemble.

(before you deny that the above poster used the words "keep and bear" to mean "possession or use", consider that if he meant it in the conjunctive sense, his statement would amount to a circular reference:
the right of states to support their militias by allowing potential militia members to {support their militias by allowing potential militia members to {support their militias by allowing potential militia members to }....)



Then to compound the Duh! factor, that same person then asks -so what if "keep and bear" does mean "possession or use" ?

Duh! Since "the right to keep and bear arms" refers to the right to possess or use certain weapons as per the Miller ruling, it does not have the "conjunctive" meaning urged by Silveira -"the right of states to support their militias".

That Judge Reinhardt's "conjunctive" meaning of the right to keep and bear arms can not be shoe-horned into the Miller ruling ought to give a reasonable person concerns as to Judge Reinhart's methods and conclusion.

[MrBenchley]

17. Yeah, it shows.....

The gun nuts' messiah was given six weeks to surrender after he shot those cops, during which time he ranted constantly about a fiery end and the like. Then when the feds finally moved in, he set fire to his own compound and killed as many of his followers as he could.

There was no excessive use of force, except in right wing loony fantasies.

"What do you think of an argument in which someone says that the Supreme Court's ruling in Miller"
I think that if you try to spin any harder, you'll become airborne like a helicopter rotor, hans.

[gatlingforme]

18. Good point, Jesse was standing up for what he thought was abuse

by police and students rights being trampled. I am wondering why the parents were not making a bigger fuss about it when they should have. If my child was treated like that I would have been in the face of anyone that was associated with that farce. including the principal who obviously is a complete MORON.

This is a civil rights issue.

You make very good points.

[Retired AF Dem]

8. Where you made your mistake is

"Perhaps you missed the posts where I pointed out that Kerry has taken the sensible position that the second amendment protects the right of individual's and he should be supported for that." If you should of learned anything here is that the 2nd amendment is a collective right and not an individual right. Since you have said that you have lost the right to any intelligent debate.

[DHard3006]

11. treat all law-abiding citizens like criminals and terrorist to feel safe

This is what we get when people want to feel secure by subjecting everybody to being a possible terrorist or criminal role.

People that want to feel safe and secure will demand this type of security measure that cannot prevent a crime or terrorist act.

This is all in the name of safety security. Safety and security will only come to the law-abiding citizens when criminals and terrorist fear the punishment for their actions.

Preventive actions such as these do nothing to prevent criminals and terrorist from committing their deeds, they will simply go around these safety and security measures.

It is easy to commit crimes and terrorist acts in a free society. The punishment for committing a crime or terrorist act in a free society should be severe enough to deter it.