Dannyboy
Member
Hey, Micro, glad to see you changed your mind about welfare
.
Angry parent blocks gun-toting teen's return to school
- Thread starter Harry Tuttle
- Start date
- Status
Hey, Micro, glad to see you changed your mind about welfare
.artherd
member
Ok, fine, give her back the .22 and you sit in a room with her and tell her she's a fat ugly slut for a few hours.
See how 'non threatening' and stable she is.
This thread is headed downhill fast, but they have her for conspiricy to commit murder. While the conspiricy laws have to be watched very closely (I could be charged with conspiricy to make a machinegun a little too easially for instance, even though I don't actually have any intention to do so.) they are in general a good thing. Checks and balances.
PATH
Member
MicroBalrog,
I gave my definition of a "kid" in an earlier post on this thread in response to a post by Chip Dixon. I don't know if you agree with it but it seems on the face of it to apply to this situation and others like it.
I gave my definition of a "kid" in an earlier post on this thread in response to a post by Chip Dixon. I don't know if you agree with it but it seems on the face of it to apply to this situation and others like it.
MicroBalrog
member
They don't HAVE her yet. They need to charge and convict first, and I don't think the "a student said so" hearsay evidence is going to cut it.
This would work just as well with many supposed adults - and not work at all with some "kids".
Chip Dixon
Member
PATH,
First, my apologies for the latency of my reply. I came down with the flu this week and have been bedridden
The crux of this disagreement is that you don't consider the rightness or wrongness of a law to be valid in this argument. However, that is exactly what MicroBalrog and myself are getting at. In America, it is the civil responsibility of the citizens to disregard any laws that are not in their best interest, as long as it does not violate the rights of others or endanger others. Because, after all, our constitution only gives the government the power to create laws in the best interest of our people. (or for the "general welfare", as it is put) If laws are unconstitutional, they are void. Therefore it would not be negligent to disregard those laws. It would be negligent to follow them. There are many laws in this country that are completely absurd, and I am sure you will agree.
-(quote)-
When looking at the word 'Neglect' we can see the concept of disregard and careless behavior intrinsic to the meaning. Carrying a gun in contravention to existing law is by definition a disregard for that law. Driving a car while under the influence of alcohol is a contravention of law. I see no emotional appeal in using one example of negligence to highlight another. Actually carrying a firearm illegaly or driving under the influence which is illegal are both negligent acts by simple defintion.
I agree that "Zero Tolerance" is a bad idea because it does not allow for alternative solutions or approaches. We should endeavor to change bad law through all legal remedies. A case in point being the recent thread hear which told of a good kid who got nailed for bringing a gun on campus accidentally. Unfortunately the law is the law until changed.
As for Ad Hominem's, how do we know this girl was a "victim? If this girl was a victim do we give her a pass for bringing a gun in to solve her probem? Do we want to send a message that if you carry a gun to school illegally there are no consequences? Emotional verbiage? A matter of conjecture, eh?
It is all out in the ether as it were. My only contention is that this girl broke the law. She is subject to the law she admitted breaking. Period.
The rightness or the wrongness of the law is a subject for another debate.
-(endquote)-
We must learn from history that blindly following order is negligence when you have the mental capacity to see through them. After all, how many nazi officers in the Nuremburg trials answered to their crimes by saying, "I was only following orders?" I lost count. More police officers should keep this in mind when they are trying to ensure justice. Real justice is not always served by the law as it is. It is served by discretionary application of those laws.
As for where I thought you were appealing to emotions, via speculation:
-(quote)-
You might be a very religious, feed the poor, good to everyone kind of guy until the night you decide to blow up a building. (Not you, I am just using hyperbole). Say like an abortion clinic. You may consider your position moral but the laws of the land do not allow you to blow things up.
-(endquote)-
This was rather unrelated to the matter at hand, as blowing up abortion clinics would violate the rights of others, and harm others. It also puts a gory picture in the mind, which often clouds logical thought. This is a common tactic of the gun-grabbers. They make the sheeple so fixated on bleeding children that they are incapable of any small sliver of rational thought that they might have been capable of before the image was introduced into their head. Simply carrying a gun, with no intention to harm anyone, violates no one's rights -- and harms no one.
Best Regards,
Chip Dixon
First, my apologies for the latency of my reply. I came down with the flu this week and have been bedridden
The crux of this disagreement is that you don't consider the rightness or wrongness of a law to be valid in this argument. However, that is exactly what MicroBalrog and myself are getting at. In America, it is the civil responsibility of the citizens to disregard any laws that are not in their best interest, as long as it does not violate the rights of others or endanger others. Because, after all, our constitution only gives the government the power to create laws in the best interest of our people. (or for the "general welfare", as it is put) If laws are unconstitutional, they are void. Therefore it would not be negligent to disregard those laws. It would be negligent to follow them. There are many laws in this country that are completely absurd, and I am sure you will agree.
-(quote)-
When looking at the word 'Neglect' we can see the concept of disregard and careless behavior intrinsic to the meaning. Carrying a gun in contravention to existing law is by definition a disregard for that law. Driving a car while under the influence of alcohol is a contravention of law. I see no emotional appeal in using one example of negligence to highlight another. Actually carrying a firearm illegaly or driving under the influence which is illegal are both negligent acts by simple defintion.
I agree that "Zero Tolerance" is a bad idea because it does not allow for alternative solutions or approaches. We should endeavor to change bad law through all legal remedies. A case in point being the recent thread hear which told of a good kid who got nailed for bringing a gun on campus accidentally. Unfortunately the law is the law until changed.
As for Ad Hominem's, how do we know this girl was a "victim? If this girl was a victim do we give her a pass for bringing a gun in to solve her probem? Do we want to send a message that if you carry a gun to school illegally there are no consequences? Emotional verbiage? A matter of conjecture, eh?
It is all out in the ether as it were. My only contention is that this girl broke the law. She is subject to the law she admitted breaking. Period.
The rightness or the wrongness of the law is a subject for another debate.
-(endquote)-
We must learn from history that blindly following order is negligence when you have the mental capacity to see through them. After all, how many nazi officers in the Nuremburg trials answered to their crimes by saying, "I was only following orders?" I lost count. More police officers should keep this in mind when they are trying to ensure justice. Real justice is not always served by the law as it is. It is served by discretionary application of those laws.
As for where I thought you were appealing to emotions, via speculation:
-(quote)-
You might be a very religious, feed the poor, good to everyone kind of guy until the night you decide to blow up a building. (Not you, I am just using hyperbole). Say like an abortion clinic. You may consider your position moral but the laws of the land do not allow you to blow things up.
-(endquote)-
This was rather unrelated to the matter at hand, as blowing up abortion clinics would violate the rights of others, and harm others. It also puts a gory picture in the mind, which often clouds logical thought. This is a common tactic of the gun-grabbers. They make the sheeple so fixated on bleeding children that they are incapable of any small sliver of rational thought that they might have been capable of before the image was introduced into their head. Simply carrying a gun, with no intention to harm anyone, violates no one's rights -- and harms no one.
Best Regards,
Chip Dixon
joab
Member
The rightness or wrongness should NOT be considered in this case. Because she did not do this to point out or challenge a wrongful law. She carried for the expressed purpose of threatening another person with death or serious injury.
MicroBalrog
member
According to who?
joab
Member
I'll cocede that point I thought that she had admitted to it but after rereading I see that it was a statement by another student which has not been verified
I'll edit to this
Chip Dixon
Member
joab,
I agree with you that, in this case, rightness or wrongness shouldn't be considered. PATH was making broader statements, though.
Best Regards,
Chip Dixon
I agree with you that, in this case, rightness or wrongness shouldn't be considered. PATH was making broader statements, though.
Best Regards,
Chip Dixon
MicroBalrog
member
Why not?
joab
Member
Read the entire comment I believeI explain my reasoning clearly
MicroBalrog
member
No, you haven't, you said discussion of the law were not valid because the girl's action was not one of civil disobedience. I don't see how that makes discussion of the law invalid. Were I on a jury, I would vote to acquit.
jimpeel
Member
How temporary the order is will be determined by how long it takes for this girl to show up at her home with a firearm.
joab
Member
Then I am glad that I don't live in your world . But then after researching some of your other post I don't believe that you live in that world either.
And by the way I did explain myself in that post I gave my opinion and stated the reasoning I used to arrive at that opinion.
And by the way I did explain myself in that post I gave my opinion and stated the reasoning I used to arrive at that opinion.
jimpeel
Member
Path
The BATFE states that the restoration of rights by the state is not valid and only they may restore them.
All applications for restoration of rights are returned. The USSC recently ruled that the lack of a denial for the restoration of rights is not a denial and may not be challenged.
There is no way for a person to have their rights restored. The BATFE claims to have exclusive pervue for that function but the anti-firearms blissninnies lobbied for, and got, the defunding of the BATFE's department that does that function.
The BATFE states that the restoration of rights by the state is not valid and only they may restore them.
All applications for restoration of rights are returned. The USSC recently ruled that the lack of a denial for the restoration of rights is not a denial and may not be challenged.
MicroBalrog
member
Please inform me what world I live in.
OMG...
joab
Member
Not quite sure but I think the billy goats crossing over the bridge would keep me up at night.
A world where there are no criminals only people wrongly persecuted by the authorities.
Where taking responsibility for one's action's or expecting others to is a foreign concept because it's all the evil gov't's fault anyway.
Where murderers should be allowed to live out their lives in comfort and not pay for their crimes in kind, because gov't oppression drove them to their crimes.
Where all gov't is inherently evil and whose only goal is oppressing it's subjects.
This girl committed a crime she should pay for the crimes that she has admitted to commiting.
Possibly there should be some consideration to mitigating circumstances, if any exist, but she should have to take responsibility for her actions.
There I hope I have answered all of your questions because quite frankly I am irritated with myself for getting into this innane conversation with you. As I usually avoid any contact with you because quite frankly I believe that your only purpose in your postings is to get attention by being anti anything that is being discussed. And I also believe that absolutly nobody could be as extrene as you pose to be.
And with that I am out of here because Ive had all I can stand I can't stands no more.
I will leave you with a little story that will sum up my feelings on this and all conversations with you.
A young man was walking down the street, and saw a old man pounding his head against a pole. He asked the old man "Why are you pounding your haed against that pole"? The old man replied "Because it feels so good when you stop".
MicroBalrog
member
Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.
Here's are some MORE extreme folks
No victim, no crime.
I am sorry, but, from the POV of morality, no immoral acts has been convicted IMHO.
You seem to be unable to separate victimless crime and violent crime. There's a world of a difference. There's a very real difference between carrying a weapon to school and shooting the place up.
PATH
Member
Chip Dixon,
I used the example of the clinic as an illustration in talking about the morality of a law. Some folks would see it as moral others would not. The bottom line is that many of our laws are subject to this type of interpretation by people.
While it may seem best to ignore any laws that are not moral the resulting chaos would undermine the underpinnings of our society. Laws that are not "moral" need to be changed and there is a process to democratically do so.
In New York State a police officer will arrest you for smoking a joint in a bar.
Some people feel that drug laws infringe on their rights and smoking in a bar should be allowed regardless of the substance one smokes. The fact is that both actions are illegal in New York State. You might think these laws silly and immoral but you'll still be arrested and prosecuted.
The Nuremburg analogy is Ad Hominem in that I think comparing American law to that of Nazi Germany is a bit of a stretch. As for the abortion clinic it was used as an example of illegal actions, as defined by law, taken by an otherwise moral person. I think the legal structure of our justice system allows the constitutionality of a law to be challenged quite vigorously.
I am sorry to hear you have the Flu. Get plenty of bedrest and drink plenty of fluids. I hope you get well soon!
jimpeel,
Thanks for the heads up. I have met one fellow who came in to buy a gun and showed us a copy of judge's order restoring his rights. A NICS check was done and a proceed response was given. I need to check into this matter a little more thoroghly. Thanks for the heads up.
I used the example of the clinic as an illustration in talking about the morality of a law. Some folks would see it as moral others would not. The bottom line is that many of our laws are subject to this type of interpretation by people.
While it may seem best to ignore any laws that are not moral the resulting chaos would undermine the underpinnings of our society. Laws that are not "moral" need to be changed and there is a process to democratically do so.
In New York State a police officer will arrest you for smoking a joint in a bar.
Some people feel that drug laws infringe on their rights and smoking in a bar should be allowed regardless of the substance one smokes. The fact is that both actions are illegal in New York State. You might think these laws silly and immoral but you'll still be arrested and prosecuted.
The Nuremburg analogy is Ad Hominem in that I think comparing American law to that of Nazi Germany is a bit of a stretch. As for the abortion clinic it was used as an example of illegal actions, as defined by law, taken by an otherwise moral person. I think the legal structure of our justice system allows the constitutionality of a law to be challenged quite vigorously.
I am sorry to hear you have the Flu. Get plenty of bedrest and drink plenty of fluids. I hope you get well soon!
jimpeel,
Thanks for the heads up. I have met one fellow who came in to buy a gun and showed us a copy of judge's order restoring his rights. A NICS check was done and a proceed response was given. I need to check into this matter a little more thoroghly. Thanks for the heads up.
- Status
