Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Cop-killer dead; NOW start asking questions

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    The main problem is the criminal code and laws making all kinds of garbage illegal…. Even to the point of ignoring the Constitution to do so. For example, preventative laws are (IMHO) all unconstitutional and should all be immediately stricken from the books. What do I mean by preventative laws? Laws like those making ownership of automatic weapons illegal, laws that make concealing a weapon illegal, laws that make owning a knife longer than 4’’ illegal, laws that criminalize doing or making or growing drugs (totally unconstitutional) and laws like DWI laws. All are useless and totally unconstitutional no matter how well intentioned.

    What we need is to enforce the Constitution and put thieves and murderers ONLY in jail. For DWI, if you crash and kill someone… that’s murder… no more first or second degree murder… just murder. Same sentence for every murderer… life in prison without any hope for parole. If you just drink and drive and no one ever gets hurt… then why are you put in jail? Why are you crowding our court system? The problem with people in this country is that their good intentions (i.e. preventing bad things from happening) by making those bad things illegal, is turning this country into a police state in which things will go from bad to HELL ON EARTH if we’re not careful.

    This criminal Clemmons got released because jails and prisons are overcrowded. Because we have so many people in prison for non-violent crimes, we are now seeing violent criminals slipping through the cracks and getting out of prison.

    Unless we all stand up and begin challenging the unconstitutional laws, we will continue to have overcrowding. Think about all the violent crimes that are committed because of drugs… if all drugs were legal, that would cut down on many of those crimes (not all of course). We need to take control of this country out of the hands and minds of lawyers or its only going to get worse… remember, very bad for you and I means good for the lawyer… the more laws, the more business for them. To me, it is the lawyers who are clogging the system with unconstitutional laws who is the real criminal and they are also the ones who are responsible for the deaths of our 4 police officers. If it were not for the sliminess of the wheeling and dealing that goes on with these clemency deals… Clemmons would still be behind bars in Arkansas.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    The main problem is the criminal code and laws making all kinds of garbage illegal…. Even to the point of ignoring the Constitution to do so. For example, preventative laws are (IMHO) all unconstitutional and should all be immediately stricken from the books. What do I mean by preventative laws? Laws like those making ownership of automatic weapons illegal, laws that make concealing a weapon illegal, laws that make owning a knife longer than 4’’ illegal, laws that criminalize doing or making or growing drugs (totally unconstitutional) and laws like DWI laws. All are useless and totally unconstitutional no matter how well intentioned.

    What we need is to enforce the Constitution and put thieves and murderers ONLY in jail. For DWI, if you crash and kill someone… that’s murder… no more first or second degree murder… just murder. Same sentence for every murderer… life in prison without any hope for parole. If you just drink and drive and no one ever gets hurt… then why are you put in jail? Why are you crowding our court system? The problem with people in this country is that their good intentions (i.e. preventing bad things from happening) by making those bad things illegal, is turning this country into a police state in which things will go from bad to HELL ON EARTH if we’re not careful.

    This criminal Clemmons got released because jails and prisons are overcrowded. Because we have so many people in prison for non-violent crimes, we are now seeing violent criminals slipping through the cracks and getting out of prison.

    Unless we all stand up and begin challenging the unconstitutional laws, we will continue to have overcrowding. Think about all the violent crimes that are committed because of drugs… if all drugs were legal, that would cut down on many of those crimes (not all of course). We need to take control of this country out of the hands and minds of lawyers or its only going to get worse… remember, very bad for you and I means good for the lawyer… the more laws, the more business for them. To me, it is the lawyers who are clogging the system with unconstitutional laws who is the real criminal and they are also the ones who are responsible for the deaths of our 4 police officers. If it were not for the sliminess of the wheeling and dealing that goes on with these clemency deals… Clemmons would still be behind bars in Arkansas.
    Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  4. #4
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.
    Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.
    Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.
    I support the constitution and uphold it. If you don't like our laws regarding DUI's here, go live in Louisianna. There are laws for a reason.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.
    Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.
    There's a difference between having a couple drinks and driving versus DWI. I agree that the limits may be a bit low due to MADD insanity (maddness?). Here's a question: I live in Bellevue, should I be allowed to randomly shoot my guns in the air? What if I do it repeatedly and nobody gets hurt?
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.
    Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.
    There's a difference between having a couple drinks and driving versus DWI. I agree that the limits may be a bit low due to MADD insanity (maddness?). Here's a question: I live in Bellevue, should I be allowed to randomly shoot my guns in the air? What if I do it repeatedly and nobody gets hurt?
    Ask yourself the same question about fireworks. Should we rely on the government to celebrate for us. I firmly believe that until there is injury there is no foul. Now days people are being prosecuted for what might happen. Something just seems a little Orwellian about that don't you think?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.
    Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.
    Can you show me where DWI laws, different degrees of murder laws etc.. violate the constitution?

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Kildars wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.
    Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.
    Can you show me where DWI laws, different degrees of murder laws etc.. violate the constitution?
    Yep these things are up to states to decide.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    A cop killer is dead, and now is the time to start asking questions
    +100 Dave.

    Great article, and spot on.

  11. #11
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.
    Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.
    I'm sorry, so, what was the upside for the drunk driver or the other people on or even near the road in a DUI situation?

    I mean, I get firearms, they can be used for good, fireworks are entertaining when they are used responsibly, knifes have useful purposes, all these things CAN harm someone when used irresponsibly, but they can also be used for good in the majority of law abiding citizens hands.... but...what was the upside of a someone driving drunk again?

    O that's right, there isn't one. Maybe THAT'S why its illegal.... ya think?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Tawnos wrote:
    Only one I disagree with is DWI. As I've previously stated, DWI is assault on every other person you come into contact with, as them seeing you in that car, swerving or otherwise being unstable have reasonable belief you are about to harm them. Assault is harmful, for the same reason as coercion, or any other intimidating act that doesn't cause physical injury, but can reasonably be associated with use of force.
    Ok, so when I was drinking (many years past), I drove... yeah, I know, I was taking a big risk, however, no one ever got hurt... I destroyed no property and I didn't even hurt myself. The law did not prevent me from doing this... and DWI laws NEVER prevent drinking and driving... I have a tonof friends who also would drive while intoxicated... and only one person in my entire life that I knew was killed in a drinking and driving accident, yet, I knew two people who died of alcohol poisoning... and someone else actually bought the alcohol that those two people (at different times) drank... so is that murder? I mean come on.... the whole idea of goody goody laws meant to prevent bad things from happening is just total BS and unconstitutional.
    I'm sorry, so, what was the upside for the drunk driver or the other people on or even near the road in a DUI situation?

    I mean, I get firearms, they can be used for good, fireworks are entertaining when they are used responsibly, knifes have useful purposes, all these things CAN harm someone when used irresponsibly, but they can also be used for good in the majority of law abiding citizens hands.... but...what was the upside of a someone driving drunk again?

    O that's right, there isn't one. Maybe THAT'S why its illegal.... ya think?
    Maybe unless I actually hurt someone, it is none ofyour damn business... how about that??? Its called liberty... I know that most people, if pushed, actually hate liberty that isn't their own.... the way they think is "Give me myliberty, but your liberty can go to hell!" People only like it when they have freedom, but recoil at the though of giving that same latitude to other people because.... name your excuse for being a liberty thief.... they "might" hurt someone? Complete BS.... we have over crowding, and lenient sentences for scumbags like the bastard they just shot, and you still think its a good idea to CROWD the jails with people who do stuff you don't like... even if their actions NEVER hurt anyone... better to be safe than sorry??? That's the same G-DAMN excuse the anti gunners use to take our guns away... they just apply it to our guns, not our right to drive.... I drove no less than 50 times drunk... not one person was hurt... sure, I was an idiot between the age of 21 and 26.... but since I never hurt anyone else... the truth is... I NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG!!!!

    You people are only interested in yourselves and in the Liberty you care about... and are willing to strip others of their liberty as long as it is a liberty you disagree with... well, the Constitution does not make that distinction... it does not say "secure the blessings of only liberty we agree withto ourselves..." it says very clearly "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves..."

    You cannot control people... and the more you try, the more you fail and the more laws that will have to be made to make up for the failure and then the more failure that will happen and more and more of your fellow citizens will become criminals. We already live in a GD police state... and there is nowhere else to run to get away from police states... so it is time to make a stand... you're either a statist (a person who wants total government control) or you are a person who wants to stand for liberty... because there is no middle ground.... only one side ever gives in... and for the past 145 years... that side has been the side of Liberty.

    Open Carry is about Liberty. It has never been about the 2A really. A Freeman has the inalienable right to defend himself... and once that right is gone... so is his Liberty. We're at a precipice... and if you keep pushing people over because you disagree with how they use their liberty... soon, someone will push you over because they disagree with how you use your liberty... and there will be no one to stop them because the only ones who would have sided with you... you pushed over the edge already.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  13. #13
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    I have to agree here. Hell, I was shocked to hear that Dori Monson (talk radio 97.3 fm) who is pretty conservative say we need to stop arresting people for pot possession or even prostitution. We waste a sh!t ton of money for no good reason. Other than to perpetuate the lie that is our marijuana law.

    Your liberty ends where mine begins and so on. It's the same idea I give to anti-gun folks. You don't have to like my gun, approve of it, own one yourself, or protest against gun ownership. But you damn sure better not ever try to tell me that I can't own one.

    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    I don't think the point of pointing out the DWI was intended as we should be allowed to drive around drunk... I think it was intended for we should have to decide when we can and can't drive by our self's and not by a stupid number.

    Is it so bad to go 70 in a 60 in the middle of the night when nobody is around? No, but if a LEO who's going 100 behind me see's me the odd's are he will pull me over and give me a ticket. Who did he save? Nobody. He would have just enslaved me to go work my a$$ off to make the money to pay for it..

    When I drink I know when I can and cannot drive. I can very clearly tell when I am too drunk to drive.

    I also understand that there are people out there who decide to drive when way to drunk and are a serious danger to the people around them... But I would imagine that having a death sentence or life in prison for killing somebody from being drunk would make people think twice before getting drunk when needing to drive..

    I do all my heavy drinking at home, I have not really been to a bar to get drunk so I have no problem with driving as I don't need too. I also know I am a very serious/responsibleish person when I am really drunk. If there is nobody else around me drinking I do not even bother to unload my Glock because I know that I will not touch it.
    And for the people who say I shouldn't do that I know I wont touch it as my body is very affected by alcohol and not so much my judgment. I would have to get to a point where I pass out or very very close to passing out before I would make a stupid decision.. But I am not afraid of that because I would have a very hard time walking to anything lol..

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    When I originally read the post, I was all with you until the DWI statement. Alas, after some careful thought and correlation, as much as I don't want to admit it, there is some logic behind the statement and I would have to say I actually agree with the statement now more than I disagree. It is all too easy, for those that would choose to do so, to make the same application of FALSE logic that if we made DWI illegal to save lives, we can make the carrying of guns illegal to save lives. The arguments are one and the same to "them". However, the only caveat I would add is that there is absolutely no good that comes of drinking and it serves no positive purpose in our society. The same cannot be said of firearms. Yes, there are obviously bad things that can be tied to firearms, but they serve protective purposes as well. The same cannot be said for alcohol.

    Ideas and counterarguments are welcomed.

    Edit:
    We must also remember that driving is a privilege granted by the state and you must act in accordance with any laws regarding driving to retain that privilege. The carrying of guns however is a right protected by both the state and national constitutions. So DWI laws, I think, are legal and NOT unconstitutional, but they can still be used as ammo by the anti-gun crowd. It may sound like I am arguing against my previous statement, and I leave it there for comparative reasons. As a sidenote, I am NOT anti-alcohol. I drink responsibly.....with a preference for Trappist Ales.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    TRAKATAK wrote:
    When I originally read the post, I was all with you until the DWI statement. Alas, after some careful thought and correlation, as much as I don't want to admit it, there is some logic behind the statement and I would have to say I actually agree with the statement now more than I disagree. It is all too easy, for those that would choose to do so, to make the same application of FALSE logic that if we made DWI illegal to save lives, we can make the carrying of guns illegal to save lives. The arguments are one and the same to "them". However, the only caveat I would add is that there is absolutely no good that comes of drinking and it serves no positive purpose in our society. The same cannot be said of firearms. Yes, there are obviously bad things that can be tied to firearms, but they serve protective purposes as well. The same cannot be said for alcohol.

    Ideas and counterarguments are welcomed.



    Well alcohol seems to be the best legal way to "have fun" it also has some great side effects... Like a hangover. That little side effect alone is enough to keep me from drinking too much. I only bother to get drunk on special occasions.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    All of this has been mildly amusing, but WTF does it have to do with the Lakewood shooting and the death of suspected cop killer Clemmons?



    Answer: NOTHING!



    But thread drift here seems to take on an art form.



    :quirky:what:

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    All of this has been mildly amusing, but WTF does it have to do with the Lakewood shooting and the death of suspected cop killer Clemmons?



    Answer: NOTHING!



    But thread drift here seems to take on an art form.



    :quirky:what:

    It said to ask questions. so somebody asked a question. and here we are.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    Glocked and Loaded wrote:
    TRAKATAK wrote:
    When I originally read the post, I was all with you until the DWI statement. Alas, after some careful thought and correlation, as much as I don't want to admit it, there is some logic behind the statement and I would have to say I actually agree with the statement now more than I disagree. It is all too easy, for those that would choose to do so, to make the same application of FALSE logic that if we made DWI illegal to save lives, we can make the carrying of guns illegal to save lives. The arguments are one and the same to "them". However, the only caveat I would add is that there is absolutely no good that comes of drinking and it serves no positive purpose in our society. The same cannot be said of firearms. Yes, there are obviously bad things that can be tied to firearms, but they serve protective purposes as well. The same cannot be said for alcohol.

    Ideas and counterarguments are welcomed.



    Well alcohol seems to be the best legal way to "have fun" it also has some great side effects... Like a hangover. That little side effect alone is enough to keep me from drinking too much. I only bother to get drunk on special occasions.
    one argument im not seeing here is that dwi laws prevent harm by giving police the authority to remove impaired drivers from the road BEFORE they do harm. i dont see the logical connection of applying the same dwi arguments to banning guns as others have said. driving while impaired represents a clear & present danger to others on the road, and is something quantifyable by observation & testing (observed bad driving, bac tests, sobriety tests, etc). the mere possession of a firearm is not. comparing the two is the old "apples & oranges" bit. removing impaired drivers from the road may not prevent every tragedy, but it has doubtless prevented many. but the nature of prevention is that we cannot know exactly how many, since they were prevented from happening.

    WFL: i need to point out a smidge of hypocrisy in your argument man. i agree with you about 90%, right up until the whole dwi bit. but you seem to be implying that anyone who does not agree with you 100% or think exactly like you is a Bad Name. that, in and of its self, is a fascist/statist tactic. you say we cant control people, so why bother having laws at all? why bother criminalizing rape, theft, & murder? the laws obviously dont prevent these acts, and they certainly cannot undo them. so why even bother at all?

    (man typing long replies on a phone sux)
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  20. #20
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Glocked and Loaded wrote:
    TRAKATAK wrote:
    When I originally read the post, I was all with you until the DWI statement. Alas, after some careful thought and correlation, as much as I don't want to admit it, there is some logic behind the statement and I would have to say I actually agree with the statement now more than I disagree. It is all too easy, for those that would choose to do so, to make the same application of FALSE logic that if we made DWI illegal to save lives, we can make the carrying of guns illegal to save lives. The arguments are one and the same to "them". However, the only caveat I would add is that there is absolutely no good that comes of drinking and it serves no positive purpose in our society. The same cannot be said of firearms. Yes, there are obviously bad things that can be tied to firearms, but they serve protective purposes as well. The same cannot be said for alcohol.

    Ideas and counterarguments are welcomed.



    Well alcohol seems to be the best legal way to "have fun" it also has some great side effects... Like a hangover. That little side effect alone is enough to keep me from drinking too much. I only bother to get drunk on special occasions.
    I have no problem with alcohol in and of itself, or people who choose to drink in a responsible manner, but I, and the majority of society I would venture, take exception to people who drive under the influence of alcohol.

    Its a needless action that only endangers people. I'm not saying that is requires people to be put in prison for getting caught, (at-least the first time)but allowing it serves no purpose.

    Following WFLs logic, shooting a gun down a crowded streetwhenever you feel like itshouldn't be illegal either, just as long as you get lucky and don't hit anyone.

    Not a very intelligent argument if thats the thread of logic used.




  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    I am not suggesting to allow people to drive drunk, it was just a point. I just don't think it is right that laws are enforced so literally. The law's are there to protect us. And now are being used to control us.

    It makes sense that people shouldn't be shooting a gun in the middle of the street, but why cant I shoot my gun in my backyard? Or driving 70 in a 60 in crazy traffic when everybody is going 20 would probably lead to an accident. But what good reason is it to give me a ticket for 10 over when there is not many cars around and it is safe to do so?

    The law was intended to protect us, and now its just a business where the law is used to make money. Yet what do we do about it?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    E TN
    Posts
    165

    Post imported post

    Yes, it IS time to start asking questions:

    1.) How did this thread go so far off topic already, its just the first PAGE

    2.) why is it acceptable to circumvent due process just because this perp had a bad rap?

    3.) why is the referenced article on Examiner little else but a list of ad-hominem attacks and off topic comments? The question posed is feedback on news articles, but Examiners response is to attack the accused (no-wait-he cant be accused, hes DEAD)

    4.) Why do police in general these days know nothing else but to shoot SOMETHING at SOMEONE?

    4a.) from 4.) why are PDs using MILITARY tactics and essentially becoming militarized?

    4b.) further from both 4.) and 4.a) consider that PDs are hiring ex-Military who know nothing ELSE but to SHOOT SOMETHING AT SOMEONE

    5.) Why wasnt this man taken into custody instead of killed? See 4.) above.

    5a.) Since it was known this man was on the loose and probably still local, why werent PDs travelling by 2's or 3's wearing body armor/plates? They have superior defenses, cars, bright lights...

    5c.) Why is it that police know nothing else but to "shoot to kill?"

    5d) from 5c.) recall (if you were paying attention ) the videos of Federal Marshalls training on an airliner mockup to shoot to injure, then shoot to kill a terrorist on an airplane (wanna talk about a tactically tough situation? there it is)

    5e.) further from 5c.), why do police shoot to kill those armed with a knife etc.

    5f.) further yet from 5c.)

    6.) Why is it / will it be justifiable since it was a result of a cop killing vs. an ordinary Citizen? Does the end justify the means?

    7.) Why is it, then, that his execution before trial will be justified based on a criminal history that WOULD HAVE ended if the system had not failed and let him out earlier.

    He DIED to cover up not the Local PDs actions, but the failure of others in other States.

    8.) Why does Examiner use red herring (off topic) to evade the question(s) posed on the papers websites as to whether this killing was justified?

    9.) the perp is ACCUSED of murder. He was killed without trial and deprived of DUE PROCESS. Is this the MO for others who kill or is it only acceptable to gun down an ACCUSED in the streets when its after a Cop killing

    The questions just dont end.

    What it boils down to is circumvention of both DUE PROCESS and Possee Comitatus.


  23. #23
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    Capn Camo wrote:
    Yes, it IS time to start asking questions:

    1.) How did this thread go so far off topic already, its just the first PAGE

    2.) why is it acceptable to circumvent due process just because this perp had a bad rap?

    3.) why is the referenced article on Examiner little else but a list of ad-hominem attacks and off topic comments? The question posed is feedback on news articles, but Examiners response is to attack the accused (no-wait-he cant be accused, hes DEAD)

    4.) Why do police in general these days know nothing else but to shoot SOMETHING at SOMEONE?

    4a.) from 4.) why are PDs using MILITARY tactics and essentially becoming militarized?

    4b.) further from both 4.) and 4.a) consider that PDs are hiring ex-Military who know nothing ELSE but to SHOOT SOMETHING AT SOMEONE

    5.) Why wasnt this man taken into custody instead of killed? See 4.) above.

    5a.) Since it was known this man was on the loose and probably still local, why werent PDs travelling by 2's or 3's wearing body armor/plates? They have superior defenses, cars, bright lights...

    5c.) Why is it that police know nothing else but to "shoot to kill?"

    5d) from 5c.) recall (if you were paying attention ) the videos of Federal Marshalls training on an airliner mockup to shoot to injure, then shoot to kill a terrorist on an airplane (wanna talk about a tactically tough situation? there it is)

    5e.) further from 5c.), why do police shoot to kill those armed with a knife etc.

    5f.) further yet from 5c.)

    6.) Why is it / will it be justifiable since it was a result of a cop killing vs. an ordinary Citizen? Does the end justify the means?

    7.) Why is it, then, that his execution before trial will be justified based on a criminal history that WOULD HAVE ended if the system had not failed and let him out earlier.

    He DIED to cover up not the Local PDs actions, but the failure of others in other States.

    8.) Why does Examiner use red herring (off topic) to evade the question(s) posed on the papers websites as to whether this killing was justified?

    9.) the perp is ACCUSED of murder. He was killed without trial and deprived of DUE PROCESS. Is this the MO for others who kill or is it only acceptable to gun down an ACCUSED in the streets when its after a Cop killing

    The questions just dont end.

    What it boils down to is circumvention of both DUE PROCESS and Possee Comitatus.
    dude, seriously? are you even aware of this perp's death? he's a suspected cop hunter, known to be armed & dangerous, stalking a cop whose back is turned, cop sees him, recognizes him, orders him down at gunpoint, and he keeps coming. the officer fired in SELF DEFENSE and any of us would have done likewise in the same circumstances. this fool denied HIMSELF due process. and shoot to wound?? are you for real? every respected voice in the self defense community has spoken out on the fallacy of shoot to wound. its hard enough for even a trained person like a cop to hit center of mass under stress. and in case you didnt know, he was altrady wounded! at least one gsw to the abdomen that was probably going septic by then. lot of good THAT wound did to stop him, eh?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    E TN
    Posts
    165

    Post imported post

    Youre reponse is:

    1.) Off topic. The thread is about answering Daves questions, not mine

    2.) ad hominem. You are doing the same thing the article does by blaming the man who was killed while deliberately ignoring his RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

    Do you even know what DUE PROCESS IS?

    Do you know who Dave WOrkman is?

    Do you know WHY hes asking?

    Youd ought to rethink that response, because what youre trying to do is throw out our ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM and replace it with YOUR OWN OPINION>

    Thats what the ANTI GUNNERs do.

    Nor did I see that you took any time to THINK and RESPOND to the points I raised.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    I do not think it is off topic. The thread started with a fact. Then it said to ask questions, however was not specific as to what or why. Leaving us with an opportunity to ask whatever question we wish to ask as that is all that was asked of us.

    I see no problem with the guy being killed. Even if it was not justified but can easily be played off like it was. As long as they knew it was the guy with no possible chance of mistaking identity. If your friends of family where killed and you know 100% who it was and came across the person before the cop's and the scenario is where you can kill them justifiably or shoot to wound and wait for the cops to come arrest them and then spend a bunch of tax money to patch up the holes and then have them sit around in prison until they get a lethal injection, what would you do?

    He was Guilty until proven innocent. I can prove it. If the cops found him and where able to restrain him they would have arrested him and took him to jail. Innocent people are usualy not arrested. I am innocent of what happened there and I did not get arrested or shot.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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