Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by dylandog

These are 1st amendment arguments, premised on the idea that special interest money is a form of speech.

If money is speech in America, and speech is free in America, then money is free in America. It's our constitutional right!

I could come around to this way of thinking.

I know, but I think it's really a stretch. Free speech is not unlimited- there's the screaming fire in a theater example and libel. Similarly, it shouldn't serve as a shield for blatant corruption.

It really amazes me that some members who contributed to this thread are on the one hand full of theri own civil rights while on the other hand they say things like: eradicate the rats etc. when writing about Arabs etc. Don't Arabs have civil rights, rights of a fair trial etc.? 99% of Arabs are just as peace loving as you and me, they want to raise their families in peace and have a quiet life.

Is this the ultimate test of civility?

Originally Posted by Kees

Don't Arabs have civil rights, rights of a fair trial etc.?

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

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 Kees

It really amazes me that some members who contributed to this thread are on the one hand full of theri own civil rights while on the other hand they say things like: eradicate the rats etc. when writing about Arabs etc. Don't Arabs have civil rights, rights of a fair trial etc.? 99% of Arabs are just as peace loving as you and me, they want to raise their families in peace and have a quiet life.

Is this the ultimate test of civility?

Don't know for sure, but eradication would be a last resort in my books. One more airliner in a building would do it for me.

Criminals here in the US lose their rights when they commit acts of violence against society. Don't see why those responsible for terrorist acts should be afforded the slightest consideration for even another breath of air. Our criminals lose those rights before trial, by the way. So there goes one of your follow-up arguments about being innocent. Y'see, I am fine with anybody and everybody, and don't care what direction they face when they are on their knees, as long as they leave me alone.

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.

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 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...

Originally Posted by urleebird

Criminals here in the US lose their rights when they commit acts of violence against society. Don't see why those responsible for terrorist acts should be afforded the slightest consideration for even another breath of air. Our criminals lose those rights before trial, by the way. So there goes one of your follow-up arguments about being innocent. Y'see, I am fine with anybody and everybody, and don't care what direction they face when they are on their knees, as long as they leave me alone.

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.

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 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 urleebird

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.

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 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...

Bill,

I don't think I am privy to more information than you are. Just simple arithmatics you can do as well. Just take e.g. Egypt. I believe that is the country where terrorist Atta was born. Google will tell you Egypt has approx. 70 million inhabitants. With a 99% peace loving population the country could still harbour 700.000 terrorists. AFAIK the Arab world as a whole does not harbour that many known terrorists.

Re. O.J. Simpson: he got a fair trial by U.S. standards. The fact that you do not like the verdict of the jury does not make it an unfair trial. There's more unfairness to the U.S. administration of justice. How about a black murderer having a higher chance of a death penalty than a white person? Is that fair?

The last paragraph of you that I quoted I'll consider not written. I usually ignore patronizing statements.

Re. O.J. Simpson: he got a fair trial by U.S. standards. The fact that you do not like the verdict of the jury does not make it an unfair trial. There's more unfairness to the U.S. administration of justice.

So, if I have this staight, you think it's ok that a guilty man who gets away with a murder of two people is justified because of your perceived notion that other blacks have been unfairly dealt with. Why does that not surprise me. If that trial is an indication of what any system of justice is all about, it needs to be scrapped.

How about a black murderer having a higher chance of a death penalty than a white person? Is that fair?

No. Now what?

AFAIK the Arab world as a whole does not harbour that many known terrorists.

That's just it. You don't know.

Oh... and I don't really care what you do or don't respond to.