Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by Feng_Li

I was under the impression that it's less the money aspect, but the restrictions on how and when particular kinds of statements/ads may be made.

The real problem that has to be dealt with is the money from corporations and special interests. It's really corrupted our system. Free speech isn't as much of a problem, as long as the air waves aren't saturated by them with a clear political intent. The same problem exists with churches, who have a special tax status unless they get politically involved.

As I said we really shouldn't carrying on this discussion here. I would be happy to do it in a separate thread or even privately. But drawing the issue away from the thread topic is impolite.

Originally Posted by Feng_Li

That would depend upon the country in which they live...

Clearly, under our constitution, being Arab doesn't exclude you from constitutional rights.

The Consitution doesn't apply just to citizens or just in our country. The reasonable conclusion is that it applies wherever we are in control, whereever we assert our law. This is consistent with the Declaration of Independence, which says that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. That's a statement of our creed that is incorporated in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by urleebird

Criminals here in the US lose their rights when they commit acts of violence against society.

They do not lose all their right!, just those necessary to incarcerate them and some others, like the right to vote. You statement also has to include the assumption that they've been convicted, or they're not criminals. Even the worst criminal has the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. The right to a fair trial and against self incrimination if he's being tried for something additional. The right to freedom of religion and speech, and maybe habeas corpus.

Don't see why those responsible for terrorist acts should be afforded the slightest consideration for even another breath of air.

This could be true if they're convicted of certain crimes, but not if they're just accused. It remains to be seen what will happen with those commissions, but under current law they still need to be convicted in a fair trial. Just being arrested or accused doesn't make you a criminal or a terrorist yet.

Our criminals lose those rights before trial, by the way. So there goes one of your follow-up arguments about being innocent

Where does that come from? They are not a criminal before trial, and they are entitled to be released on bial unless a court finds a good reason not to. So exactly what rights is it that the accused lose? They are innocent until proven guilty.

And a trial? I hope your idea of a fair trial doesn't mean a duplication of the one for OJ Simpson. I don't know why I get the impression that is what you really mean by fair.

That was a travesty, but I'm not sure what could have been done once the jury decided. Does it mean we need to do away with a fair trial and go to a commission system for everyone? Just how far does this go?

From what I've read about the new law, the president has the power to decide who is subject to it. So, it could be any of us. If anyone has information to the contrary, please let us know.

I am also curious. I'm not quite sure if you are trying to stimulate honest answers through debate, or just goad people into responding harshly. I'd kinda like to know where you got the 99% from, as well. Are you privy to some information that the rest of us don't have. I, personally, don't think that number is accurate. Then again, I may not know as much as you.

I'm not sure what part goads people on. Is it the 99%? If so, pick a number. Do you like 50%? Does that justify disenfranchising or anihilating a race? I think that's what he's asking, and what part of that goads you on? Isn't this just another personal attack calculated to discourage him or punish him from speaking his mind?

I hope that response was polite enough for everybody... If you don't like this one, I know you won't like the rest of them...

And what's this, some kind of veiled threat? Although I'm speaking to the issues I'm also, speaking to you, sir. Is this your idea of free discourse? Why does everything become so personal and every response so antagonistic?

Originally Posted by JLStorm

Im pretty sure if I killed many of your close friends with pride that your ideals would change. Civil rights are lost when a group you are associated admits (with glee) that they planned and funded mass murder. Remember, you are dealing with acts of war, not penny theft. As far as I am concerned everyone associated with the organization in any way shape or form who admits to carrying out these acts should suffer the same consiquences.

Besides, they are the ones that want to die violantly for their god, we would just be expediting the process a bit, technically they should pay extra for that.

Hold on for a minute! I lost friends, and I have close friends who lost their young son on 9/11, and I saw the whole thing first hand and lived throught the aftermath for months every day. I have no love for those terrorists.

But we're mixing things up a little here. The discussion is about Arabs, and I'm not prepared to hold them all reponsible for what the terrorists did, even if they're somehow associated, like having a relative involved. I'm not responsible if one of my relatives goes nuts and kills a bunch of people. THe Christian ideal is the Amish. They took up a collection for the families affected by the shootings, and one family insisted on sharing it with the family of the killer.

If you're talking about people who are convicted of terrorist acts, I agree with you. But it has to be a conviction, not an accusation. Not everyone the police arrest is guilty, or we wouldn't need a trial. The more seriious the punishment, the more sure you need to be that the person is guilty. But I think we're talking about the Arabs as a group.

I don't remember what the percentage was, but in an election Hitler won over 90% approval. Now assuming the vote wasn't fabricated, should we have anihilated Germany?

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

Hold on for a minute! I lost friends, and I have close friends who lost their young son on 9/11, and I saw the whole thing first hand and lived throught the aftermath for months every day. I have no love for those terrorists.

But we're mixing things up a little here. The discussion is about Arabs, and I'm not prepared to hold them all reponsible for what the terrorists did, even if they're somehow associated, like having a relative involved. I'm not responsible if one of my relatives goes nuts and kills a bunch of people. THe Christian ideal is the Amish. They took up a collection for the families affected by the shootings, and one family insisted on sharing it with the family of the killer.

If you're talking about people who are convicted of terrorist acts, I agree with you. But it has to be a conviction, not an accusation. Not everyone the police arrest is guilty, or we wouldn't need a trial. The more seriious the punishment, the more sure you need to be that the person is guilty. But I think we're talking about the Arabs as a group.

I don't remember what the percentage was, but in an election Hitler won over 90% approval. Now assuming the vote wasn't fabricated, should we have anihilated Germany?

When I say association I mean associated in supporting the terrorists in anyway. That would mean if they helped fund them, or gave them a place to sleep after it was made known they were suspect, or even failed to assist law enforcement or recovery teams. The list could go on and on, but I do not mean guilt simply through association, but if that association is after it is made publicly known that there is a man hunt for them or their group, then the gloves are off. We have very similar laws here as you know, such as aiding and abetting or harboring a fugitive, even if we dont enforce them regularly.

So no you arent responsible for what your family members may do, but if you show them support that inhibits law enforcement in any way after they do something illegal, you are somewhat responsible.

Josh, that's assuming you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they aided the commission of the crime. Otherwise, as Joe said, we wouldn't need a trial and thousands of innocent people would suffer even though they are innocent.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Josh, that's assuming you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they aided the commission of the crime. Otherwise, as Joe said, we wouldn't need a trial and thousands of innocent people would suffer even though they are innocent.

We have a heavy military presence with surveillance and many intelligence resources, far more than state and most federal law enforcement. If they have photos and intel stating that a family is putting up a wanted terrorist or a group of insurgants are staying in a house, I dont care who else is in it, level the damn thing and take them all out.

Same with the israel palistine crap. Israel tells the entire city and drops leaflets, if you resmain here you WILL be fired upon, and yet people stay and israel aims around them...screw it level the damn city.

I understand what you are saying, but you also have to understand that if our method of battle differs from theirs we will suffer much heavier losses, and its very easy for people who are not in the military or who do not have family in the military to just brush that off sitting behind their comfy desks or not seeing the images that you dont see on CNN. All we are doing by trying to be the "bigger man" is kill our people while their people laugh their asses off, I simply do not understand how anyone thinks that this is the right way to do things.

Aren't we kind of blurring the line between law enforcement and warfare? Aiding and abetting constitutes cupability in a criminal context. But when a country is at war virtually everyone can be said to be aiding and abetting. But the laws of war make very clear distinctions between combatants and non-combatants.

Originally Posted by JerseyLawyer

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Fortunately or unfortunately (well, fortunately for me, because I'd otherwise be out of a job), inmates have a pretty significant panoply of rights. They retain all rights that are not inconsistent with incarceration. So, for example, they have a wide array of religious freedoms. Believe me, we get sued /all the time/ for supposed violations of inmate rights, anything from not letting them wear a kufi to someone getting beaten down (by another inmate or occasionally a CO).

Of course, they do lose one of the most signifcant rights - the freedom to be at liberty and go wherever you wish. Something which, by the way, warms the cockles of my heart when I get particularly frustrated with a case.

Keith... That's basicly what I was referring to. Whether they are innocent or not, they lose a bunch if they are incarcerated and cannot afford bail or don't have bail at all. What cracks me up is that someone who didn't pay their dog licence winds up staying on no bail, and someone accused of some serious stuff can get out without paying a dime. Any bail less that $2,000 in our jail was immediately released.

So, if the bad boy/girl is in our jail, they can't go to McDonalds, they can't go to the movies, they can't spend touch-time with family, they certainly can't have a gun, they can't, they can't , they can't... that's what I meant by losing their rights even if they were innocent.

Originally Posted by dylandog

Aren't we kind of blurring the line between law enforcement and warfare? Aiding and abetting constitutes cupability in a criminal context. But when a country is at war virtually everyone can be said to be aiding and abetting. But the laws of war make very clear distinctions between combatants and non-combatants.

Which is our weakness in this case. These rules were fine when we were fighting marked military units, or when civilians were treated differently than military personnel. They refuse to do either of these, and yet we continue to hurt ourselves by following these rules while our enemy does not. They do not deserve this type of respect for life unless they do the same in return. They have made it clear that they will not, the rules of traditional war should no longer apply. Will there be innocent people killed, most probably, but I would rather 100 of theirs than one of ours, you can disagree with me all you would like and that is just fine, we can agree to disagree.