Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns I’ll kill anybody that steps on my property

Back to the original story. He shot the guy down and then delivered a tap to the back of the head and he got a murder 2 charge?

Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with that besides me?

he was already dead (no one can prove otherwise) and so the head tap was simple abuse of corpse ...

i am always amazed when people appeal to return to original meaning as if they possessed personal and intimate information which allowed them to have greater understanding of he document than anyone else including the Founders.

Every president who had personal contact with the writing of the Constitution expanded government immediately upon entering office. These leads me to believe they either completely understood the document or grossly stepped on it. Now if they understood it then no more can be said, but if they did as some suggest and overstepped the bounds of limited government, then the Founders are either stupid for failing to understand the very document they wrote or they were grossly duplicitous.

Now the consensus is they were not stupid, which means they were duplicitous which implies the document is a worthless piece of crap, so why would anyone want a return to something which is worthless?

I just can't get over the exaggeration that occurs over this topic, and how it has devolved into stereohype and prejudice. The "murder rate" in the United States is remarkably low and statistically indistinguishable from most other developed countries, including Canada. source. Of course, you can twist the statistics lots of ways. You are four times more likely to be murdered in the Virgin Islands, six times more likely in the Bahamas, and eight times more likely to be murdered in Jamaica than in the United States. No U.S. City makes the top 25 of the most dangerous. source But then, we keep statistics, and a lot of places don't.

I was not referring to a return to the original constitution, Greger. I was referring to the government simply once again basing its actions on the constitution as it now is, even though I think the constitution today primarily functions as a figleaf for the powerful when they want their hirelings in the political and the legal industries to lend a patina of legitimacy to some scheme to benefit them or some favored group. For a document that has been so subverted and circumvented by the usual suspects on the left and the right, replacing it would simply give the 'progressive' crowd and their sisters in the modern conservative movement a once in a lifetime opportunity to further reduce what little liberty we have left and to further restrict the exercising of natural rights while further expanding the power of the state. That said, I think the American left is as filled with vicious, fascistic-minded political monsters as today's right -- if not more so -- which means that I agree with your assessment concerning any attempt to re-write the Constitution.
Yours,
Issodhos

They could hold him on a Murder 2 charge while they work on the investigation. Sometimes charging a capital offense too early puts too much pressure on the investigation because the timelines for processing might change. Not familiar with Florida law, so I am not sure if that is true there, but I think so. As it was described in the paper, the victim was clutching his chest and writhing before the murderer shot him in the head. He might have survived otherwise. It takes longer to die of blood loss than a bullet to the brain.

Ah. Thanks.

one of several reasons it is so difficult conversing with you

when Bachmann says she wants to take the country, she is not referring to take it back to what it already is, but to return it to her perception of 1789 country and it's corollary the Constitutional return of not what it is today but to the Constitution of 1789.

It is true you did not explicitly state in original post a return to when and where, there is a certain sense in what you meant/mean when one says "return to it". As previously stated by you, you are an originalist but not a literalist as I recollect. So it seems kinda odd that an originalists would now declare a return to something so distasteful (to an originalist) as the current version of understanding.

This is the worst kind of head fake. Yesterday you meant one thing, but today you mean something different.

but to add to the original conversation: i note with some interest the current mindset of the hillbillies who possess weapons and their counter parts in legislative bodies, who pass laws tantamount to legalized murder. A not so quick check of county records in 1790 revealed that the most common lawsuit presented in county court (Court of Common Pleas) was trespassing ... the number of suits was truly amazing especially considering the population ... thus on the frontier where danger and a certain risk to life was an everyday occurrence, the pioneers did not resort to "stand your ground" for resolution but instead sought relieve in the court system ... my, have we come a long way in some respects

Then, she'll not have a job in Congress and she won't be able to vote.

Even in the Old West they had much more common sense (for the most part) than now. There were unspoken laws and agreements concerning the honor or dishonor of shooting someone under various conditions.
You were okay to engage in a gunfight against an armed adversary but only a coward shot a man in the back, and an unarmed man was allowed to "choose his weapon" when a challenge was issued.

I am not speaking of the criminal element, nothing's changed there. I am speaking of ordinary law abiding people, you didn't violate the code. The code was understood as central to keeping law and order.

Today there is no code, none written, none tacitly agreed to, none understood and none wanted. Each man is now a law unto himself. Are we really so devolved that we as a nation can no longer be TRUSTED to keep and bear arms?

That's really the central question here re gun control...are we now so stupid that we cannot be trusted to follow an internal code that establishes right and wrong without some lobbyist think tank doing our thinking for us?

I realize there are those of you who are already jumping up and saying "yes we ARE too stupid, take the damn guns away already!" but I submit that if we really are too stupid, then we're also too stupid to be trusted with pretty much anything else, and we're ripe for dictatorial control.

Bring it on, apparently we deserve it.