Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: What is justice here?

  1. #1
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    What is justice here?

    putting it in post 2 for formatting around the ad
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  2. #2
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    9yo takes gun to school, somehow it goes off (concussion/jostling from backpack being dropped on desk), shoots classmate.

    Here's the CBS article, with link to another report.

    I think the parents & boy should be required to take at least one firearm safety class, maybe repeating it every 2 or 3 years. And the mother who was negligent in storing her pistol should be charged for that. But I don't think the boy could foresee what might happen, so at the most he would be guilty of negligence?
    I don't think the boy should be charged with anything, really.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 02-24-2012 at 07:58 PM.

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing? There is no right to risk free security, that's "inappropriate for all ages."
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 02-24-2012 at 08:24 PM. Reason: Provided emphasis for the NRA certified elites.

  4. #4
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Madness after girl, 4, draws gun pic at school. warrants further conversation...

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/madness-a...pic-at-school/
    Quote Originally Posted by WND
    The school principal, police and child welfare officials said there would need to be an investigation to determine whether he had a gun in his home that children could find.

    Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services, told the Record, “From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there’s guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child.”

    Waterloo Regional Police Inspector Kevin Thaler said Forest Hill public school had complained that “a firearm was in a residence and children had access to it. We had every concern, based on this information, that children were in danger.”

    He told the paper the school officials’ concern wasn’t based merely on the girl’s picture. Neaveh, Sansone’s daughter, also purportedly made remarks about the drawing that troubled officials.

    When a teacher asked Neaveh who the man in the picture was, she purportedly said, “That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters.”
    http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Fa...132/story.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Calgary Herald
    At some point during the investigation, police became aware that the gun was a toy pistol, information that was confirmed when they found it in the family's home later that day, said Thaler.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 02-25-2012 at 11:58 AM. Reason: Emphasis added for NRA certified elites

  5. #5
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    "The kids were scared," said Thaler. "It is a four-year-old that we're taking the information from, but the fact is that this disclosure was very descriptive and very alarming to the officers investigating this."

    Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Father+...#ixzz1nPnDEETY
    The interrogation of a 4 yr old without parents or an attorney present, arrest of the entire family, and a search of the house... The decent into madness continues. Aye.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    9yo takes gun to school, somehow it goes off (concussion/jostling from backpack being dropped on desk), shoots classmate.

    Here's the CBS article, with link to another report.

    I think the parents & boy should be required to take at least one firearm safety class, maybe repeating it every 2 or 3 years. And the mother who was negligent in storing her pistol should be charged for that. But I don't think the boy could foresee what might happen, so at the most he would be guilty of negligence?
    I don't think the boy should be charged with anything, really.
    The mother should at least be charged with negligence and child endangerment for failing to properly secure a firearm. According to the article both parents have "criminal records", so why did the mother even have posession of a firearm?

    ONLY $50,000 bail for this delinquent child? This vicious 9-year old boy is an obvious flight risk, and his bail should therefore be set at a minimum of $500,000. (Yes, that is sarcasm) Why couldn't he be OR'ed to his legal guardian uncle? (Apparently this is a significantly dysfunctional family, since the uncle is the boy's legal guardian.)

    The child made a mistake... a very serious mistake. But, whose fault is it that he had easy access to a gun? The kid probably thought it would be "cool" to take a gun to school, and that perhaps he would become a celebrity among his peers for having done so. (I wonder if he played "first person shooter" video games?) Just sayin'... Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  7. #7
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    According to the article both parents have "criminal records", so why did the mother even have posession of a firearm? Pax...
    K-Pax? Felons are disbarred their Second Amendment Rights so far.

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done for almost every minority group, stressed vets, alleged domestics and now inadequate parents.

    Be careful of who you lie with, you may get off with only fleas.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    K-Pax? Felons are disbarred their Second Amendment Rights so far.

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done for almost every minority group, stressed vets, alleged domestics and now inadequate parents.

    Be careful of who you lie with, you may get off with only fleas.
    (Kevin Spacey doesn't live here) A felon has proven by his/her actions a natural inclination toward untrustworthy behavior! How do you make sense out of a philosophy that allows the felon free access to the tools necessary to commit even more criminal acts? (And the act is not "inadequate parenting" - it is willful disregard for the safety of others, resulting in serious physical injury.) "Lowering the bar of felony, blahblahblah..." is missing sufficient detailed information to even comment upon.

    Racial and ethnic "minority groups" are not restricted from possessing firearms, nor are "stressed vets"... perhaps the "minority groups" to which you refer, are the mentally ill/mentally insufficient.

    There are a lot of dead/maimed/crippled spouses who would argue the alleged part of "alleged domestics" issue with you (the dead ones can't actively argue though). Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    The weapon the boy brought to school came from moms boyfriend. He kept it in the nightstand and forgot it was there (unsecured). ND occurred because weapon was off safe, w/round in the chamber. hammer back and the boy dropped the backpack. Weapon was pointed down and blew a hole in the pack and a kid standing nearby.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  10. #10
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    (Kevin Spacey doesn't live here) A felon has proven by his/her actions a natural inclination toward untrustworthy behavior! How do you make sense out of a philosophy that allows the felon free access to the tools necessary to commit even more criminal acts? (And the act is not "inadequate parenting" - it is willful disregard for the safety of others, resulting in serious physical injury.) "Lowering the bar of felony, blahblahblah..." is missing sufficient detailed information to even comment upon.

    Racial and ethnic "minority groups" are not restricted from possessing firearms, nor are "stressed vets"... perhaps the "minority groups" to which you refer, are the mentally ill/mentally insufficient.

    There are a lot of dead/maimed/crippled spouses who would argue the alleged part of "alleged domestics" issue with you (the dead ones can't actively argue though). Pax...
    Don't tell me that a stressed vets can own a gun, because not all can. My sister's father-in-law can't just because he suffers from PDS. And I will argue that firearms aren't necessary to commit most crimes of violence. And to be perfectly honest with you Gil, criminals have pretty easy access to firearms anyways. I don't see how legalizing it would make it very much easier to get them. Preventative measures don't seem to work too well for people that don't want to prevent it.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Don't tell me that a stressed vets can own a gun, because not all can. My sister's father-in-law can't just because he suffers from PDS. And I will argue that firearms aren't necessary to commit most crimes of violence. And to be perfectly honest with you Gil, criminals have pretty easy access to firearms anyways. I don't see how legalizing it would make it very much easier to get them. Preventative measures don't seem to work too well for people that don't want to prevent it.
    Some can, some can't. ALL does not apply. If by "stressed" you mean PTSD, I can understand why they are restricted. Firearms are the most used weapon in crimes of violence - they generally remove the "up close and personal" aspect of violent acts. And the old, worn out "criminals have easy access to firearms anyway" line serves no useful purpose, nor does it justify anything, and I didn't even suggest legalizing guns for felons. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  12. #12
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    Some can, some can't. ALL does not apply. If by "stressed" you mean PTSD, I can understand why they are restricted. Firearms are the most used weapon in crimes of violence - they generally remove the "up close and personal" aspect of violent acts. And the old, worn out "criminals have easy access to firearms anyway" line serves no useful purpose, nor does it justify anything, and I didn't even suggest legalizing guns for felons. Pax...
    And good sir, IF THEY HAVE NOT HAD A COURT HEARING WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS MENTALLY DEFECTIVE THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD THEIR GUN RIGHTS INTERFERED WITH AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    And good sir, IF THEY HAVE NOT HAD A COURT HEARING WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS MENTALLY DEFECTIVE THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD THEIR GUN RIGHTS INTERFERED WITH AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Just a note about mental health and rights. Y'all realize that psychiatry gets to do an end-run around constitutional protections? You can be locked up on the signature of one or two psychs and a judge in too many jurisdictions. Same for loss of some rights, for example under PTSD. Little to no due process. Just an "adjudication".

    It is very dangerous to think of mental cases as different and subject to different rules, or rather to think mental cases should be subject to different rules. Psychiatry has a long history of abuse and misuse. In the 1950's, the psych umbrella lobbying group pushed for a reservation in Alaska for a giant mental asylum, which was narrowly defeated in congress. Literally, the beginnings of a USA gulag. (Psych "treatments" like zombiefying drugs were common in Stalinist and post-Stalin Soviet gulags for political prisoners, which most prisoners were.)

    When it comes to psychiatric diagnosis or testimony, when it does actually get into court, psych's too often don't agree with each other. In testimony in the late '80s or 90's the director on the National Institute for Mental Health admitted to congress that psychiatry does not know the cause of mental illness. Thus, a board or commission of psychs votes whether to include a "disorder" in psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Read that again. Votes whether to include. Any genuine science is quick to say that science is not a matter of consensus. It is no coincidence that increase in the number of "disorders" in the DSM has risen with the increase in pysch drugs and the rise in the number of disorders "treatable" with a given drug, nor the increase in insurance coverage for "disorders."

    Basically, what I'm saying here is that there is some really, really fishy stuff going on with psychiatry. And, some really dark, sinister stuff in its history.

    And, yet, these so-called (self-proclaimed, too) professionals can do an end run around your constitutional rights.
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-26-2012 at 02:49 AM.

  14. #14
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    In philosophy of science and epistemology, psychology is dismissed as non-science or relegated to the left-hand of the rigor-continuum for its embrace of adhockery - facts and principles continuously modified to shore-up weak arguments.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 02-26-2012 at 11:22 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    And good sir, IF THEY HAVE NOT HAD A COURT HEARING WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS MENTALLY DEFECTIVE THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD THEIR GUN RIGHTS INTERFERED WITH AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    My, you certainly are easily excited... all caps and 12 exclamation points. Maybe you should take a deep breath, and go to your 'happy place', Joe. I didn't say anything about a "court hearing" one way or the other, but since you have broached the subject...

    The outcome of this "court hearing" depends primarily upon expert testimony, which must be "straight up or down". The subject either is or is not "mentally defective" or "insane". The subject may be "adjudicated" by the judge of whatever court, but the determination of the defendant's condition - in which there is no wiggle room - is made by the mental health professional. As Citizen said, in a nutshell (no pun intended):
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    When it comes to psychiatric diagnosis or testimony, when it does actually get into court, psych's too often don't agree with each other. In testimony in the late '80s or 90's the director on the National Institute for Mental Health admitted to congress that psychiatry does not know the cause of mental illness.
    Nobody - neither man nor machine - has a complete, thorough and unquestionable understanding of the workings of the human mind. We know that there are both organic changes and/or chemical influences in the brain that may modify certain behaviors. The human brain is the most complex organ known to mankind. Do we know to what degree and for how long certain of these changes may be in effect? No, we do not. What we do have is a 'best guess' based upon what we do know about the function of both the organ (brain) and the non-organic (mind) processes. The mental health fields (psychiatry and psychology) are admittedly inaccurate. Without getting shrink-"wrapped (pun intended) around the axle" the human mind has no palpable physical presence - like oxygen, it just is. It is simply domiciled and performs in/around the physical brain. Why do psych's too often not agree with one another? Because there is only a limited amount of certainty in their fields - one reason why the psychologist's degree is in "Arts" rather than "Science", and one reason why, for purposes of differentiation and prescribing medications, the psychiatrist must also be an MD.

    If we must err, do we do so on the side of caution... or do we just cavalierly say, "Colombine was an anomaly. We don't need to take any preventative measures here at Virginia Tech!"? OC/CC could have negated, or at least have minimized the damage of both events. The good news is, that now Cho - the V-Tech student/shooter - has been evaluated... sadly, it's a bit late.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Basically, what I'm saying here is that there is some really, really fishy stuff going on with psychiatry. And, some really dark, sinister stuff in its history.
    "Fishy"? Really? Really? Trepanation (quite likely the earliest form of 'mind study') was first performed around 10,000B.C., and I seriously doubt that it was done with the idea that - 120 centuries later - it could be used against "stressed veterans" to limit their RTKBA. The Ebers Papyrus from 1,500B.C. describes symptoms that sound like depression, dementia and schizophrenia. Did they have designs to thwart our Second Amendment, or were they actually on to something? The Indian Atharva Veda (1,400B.C.) describes mental illness arising from "imbalanced humors and elements within the body". My point is, that after 12,000 years we are still offering our best guess... which is unquestionably better today than it was in 705A.D., when the first mental hospitals/mental prisons were established. We have to make the best use of that which we have available at any particular point in time - no matter how insufficient or unfair some may deem it. To do otherwise would truly be insane.

    As for the "dark, sinister stuff in its history"... every field of endeavor has dark sinister stuff in it's history, because dark, sinister people are involved. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    In philosophy of science and epistemology, psychology is dismissed as non-science or relegated to the left-hand of the rigor-continuum for its embrace of adhockery - facts and principles continuously modified to shore-up weak arguments.
    So say the students of the "hard sciences". Sciences which leave little room for imagination or growth... the "carved-in-stone sciences". Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  17. #17
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    That's a reasonable paraphrase, of what I wrote, for the unread.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 02-26-2012 at 03:59 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    884
    As a formerly practicing clinical psychologist, I can assure you that psychiatry as practiced today is very, very dangerous to us all. I can also assure you that no form of preemptive "law" prevents people from harming themselves or others if that is their desire.

    And, just to round things off. My sons learned gun safety right along with the idea of leaving other people's property alone at the age of 2 and 3... a nine year old usually has the capacity to handle a gun quite well, let alone understand the requirements for safety. Any person who truly can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted with ANYTHING and belongs in a cage or with a keeper.

    The incredible degradation of our society into a mass of helpless infants and fools seems to be following the intended course quite well.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by MamaLiberty View Post
    As a formerly practicing clinical psychologist, I can assure you that psychiatry as practiced today is very, very dangerous to us all. I can also assure you that no form of preemptive "law" prevents people from harming themselves or others if that is their desire.

    And, just to round things off. My sons learned gun safety right along with the idea of leaving other people's property alone at the age of 2 and 3... a nine year old usually has the capacity to handle a gun quite well, let alone understand the requirements for safety. Any person who truly can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted with ANYTHING and belongs in a cage or with a keeper.

    The incredible degradation of our society into a mass of helpless infants and fools seems to be following the intended course quite well.
    +1 Well said.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •