After Marine veteran makes rescue, Baltimore police file gun charges against him

[teratos]

Star Trek > Star Wars, always and forever. However:

Why you wanna pick a fight, bro?

 

[Boondock Saint]

Why you wanna pick a fight, bro?

 

[bjmsam]

That's not what it meant then

That's correct, as previously acknowledged. I was intrigued that the same word as defined for modern use remains central to discussion of government control over constitutional rights but should have resisted that play on this forum to avoid unnecessary distraction.

And we're the ones who don't understand....

...so to get this discussion back on track, I will rephrase without words that on this forum should be used only as defined in the 18th century:


1. Does legal control of who can bear what, where, when, why or how constitute violation of rights in all cases, or only some?

2. How can such cases be clarified more comprehensively before individuals (such as this Marine Veteran) are forced to test them and endure the consequences (which tend to be severe even when ultimately found innocent)?

 

[mvee]

Please research the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” instead of looking at the current definitions of “regulated”. They are very different.

 

[Crazytrain]

It’s easy to say “if a violent felon is allowed to carry and he shoots me”, but it’s not to easy to say “if a violent felon is allowed to carry and he shoots my child”. So no, in my opinion, and probably most people with children, a proven, violent felon, who is walking around free, shouldn’t carry.

Such a good idea. We need to make a law that violent felons should not be allowed to carry. That will solve all of our problems.

Well, most of our problems. After all, not everyone who is violent has been caught yet. So we should bar anyone who we think might be violent from carrying as well. Just in case.

But that might not fly. Too ripe for racial and socioeconomic discrimination. And we might miss someone. The only safe thing is to make sure that no one can carry. I'm sure if we make a law to that effect the world will be a much safer place. It's for the children.

Since I love my guns more than I love children (just ask the Democrats) my alternate opinion should be ignored. But, I figure that if people are dangerous, they should probably be incarcerated. If we feel they have paid their price to society they should get their rights back. If they were sentenced to 20 years and get out on parole in 7, their debt isn't clear until their entire sentence is up. Regardless, if we are going to let folks out of prison they need to have a road to redemption, otherwise we are just waiting for them to hurt others so we can throw them back in the slammer, and we might as well have just left them there. Removing anyone's rights for the children is to step foot on a path that leads to nowhere good. Once children are invoked as a reason to do anything, they will be invoked as a reason to do everything. This has been well demonstrated over the past several decades.

Let's walk this through. If someone at twenty years of age robs a liquor store, gets caught, and spends time in prison, should he permanently lose his rights to self defense? There is an almost 100% chance that when he gets out he will end up in a low-socioeconomic, high crime neighborhood where risk of assault is very high. Is he not allowed to defend himself? What about if he learns a trade, gets his act together, and spends the next forty years as a productive and honest member of society. At 60 will he not have earned redemption? We really need to give these folks a way out. Most won't take it, of course, and will likely spend their entire, likely short, lives in and out of the can; but if there isn't a way back to the light side of the force how can we expect them to rehabilitate?

The execution by wild animals on live TV is probably appropriate for the worst of the worst. Unfortunately I don't trust the government on much. I used to be pro capital punishment. I no longer think I trust them with that power. Especially when torture is involved. Even if the miscreants fully deserve it.

 

[bjmsam]

Please research the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” instead of looking at the current definitions of “regulated”. They are very different.

Yes, they are, as acknowledged previously. For additional clarity, to my earlier post I have appended my understanding of that 2A phrase based on my reading of Cottrol's book and relevant Federalist papers (29 and 46, IIRC) about ten years ago when I joined this forum.

I figure that if people are dangerous, they should probably be incarcerated. If we feel they have paid their price to society they should get their rights back.

This makes sense, though to your point about trust, it is imperative that such decisions be made objectively and consistently. Laws regulating restricting possession of firearms (or any potential weapon) are unlikely to influence dangerous people, previously convicted or not, who are willing to break more serious ones.

 

[eruby]

1. Does regulation (legal control) of who can bear what, where, when, why or how constitute infringement (violation of rights) in all cases, or only some? This was among the examples I offered:




2. How can such cases be clarified more comprehensively before individuals (such as this Marine Veteran) are forced to test them and endure the consequences (which tend to be severe even when ultimately found innocent)?

I'm not sure what you are even asking, because, like Owen Lift, I'm fat and stupid.

Carrying a gun state to state should be like carrying a Milky Way bar state to state.

 

[bjmsam]

I'm not sure what you are even asking

I am asking about alternatives to statutes that depend so heavily on case law.

 

[davsco]

the true bad guys are caught and released (and caught and released, and caught and released...). the good guys get the book thrown at them.

 

[eruby]

I am asking about alternatives to statutes that depend so heavily on case law.

My alternative is the same as carrying a candy bar, a Bible, a bottle of Moxie, or my fat ugly Jew hide, from state to state.

Nothing. Carry on as though we were all free Americans

No ifs, ands, or buts

 

[pcfixer]

My alternative is the same as carrying a candy bar, a Bible, a bottle of Moxie, or my fat ugly Jew hide, from state to state.

Nothing. Carry on as though we were all free Americans

No ifs, ands, or buts

https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-qf9b/images/stencil/500x659/products/443/970/gspec__97961.1581154600.jpg?c=2

 

[press1280]

Wheres the Soros prosecutor when you need one?

 

[press1280]

If convicted, Larry Hogan needs to pardon this guy

 

[dblas]

If convicted, Larry Hogan needs to pardon this guy

Larry Hogan won't be Governor when this goes to trial. And what make you think that RINO would pardon anyone that did the right thing but was arrested anyway?

 

[lazarus]

Why you wanna pick a fight, bro?

Battlestar Galactica is better than either of them.

COME AT ME BRO!

 

[teratos]

Battlestar Galactica is better than either of them.

COME AT ME BRO!

I really enjoyed the new series. Tricia Helfer and Grace Park. Yes please.

 

[Allen65]

Larry Hogan won't be Governor when this goes to trial. And what make you think that RINO would pardon anyone that did the right thing but was arrested anyway?

If he plead guilty there'd be time for a pardon. But he would need to be d*mn sure that pardon was coming before he stood up in front of the judge to admit guilt.

 

[Allen65]

Battlestar Galactica is better than either of them.

COME AT ME BRO!

The 2000's version or the Lorne Greene original?

 

[lazarus]

The 2000's version or the Lorne Greene original?

Yes