The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who rapes a child, issuing a broad decision that reserves the death penalty for murderers and those who commit crimes against the state.
The Supreme Court, splitting along ideological lines, today declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns for self-defense, striking down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun ownership as unconstitutional.
WASHINGTON - In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.
Second Amendment was written so that we, the citizens, could hold onto firearms to fight, if necessary, against a tyrannical government. Much like the one the founding fathers had just fought against. Not to mention Britain took away the right to bear arms from the colony and afterwards you had something like the Boston Massacre. So, to curtail such a thing they included that as an amendment.
As for the first one, life imprisonment and being made Big G's playmate is more fitting than just offing the individual. So I too, agree with both decisions. The Gitmo more thing less so but it seems like the Supreme Court can make good decisions every once in a while.
I am against the death penalty in general except for really horrible murderers (upwards of 10 victims) and of course for War Criminals.
The second amendment does mean citizens can have guns. I am mixed on the Second Amendment, I can appreciate the early American thought and appreciate that that fear is still a close one, but now a days, are guns what you would need? I mean, with all the technology, a soldier and a farmer with a pistol aren't an even match. I don't know if the people are still able to otherthrow a tyranny in a modern state anymore, even with guns.
As well, I think restrictions as to how guns have to be stored would be fine, you can have them just not use them.
I think the last one is a thank god at last thing.
__________________
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.
-- Voltaire
Here is what I think should be done for the whole 2nd amendment, it sounds like a lot of work but it sounds like the best solution to me.
1st off, set up a system to educate and show people how to properly use a gun in situations that are threatening to them and others around them, so they know how to use it properly. I'm thinking it could be something like a hunter safety course (in missouri you have to go through a class to get a hunter certification card to get hunting permits) that people can go to, and once they know enough about how to use a gun and use it safely, make them pass a test in order to get a card allowing then to carry a gun lawfully. Once they pass the test this person would be assigned a number and the gun they would be carrying would be marked with a registered number as well. This card would have the persons name, model of the gun they are carrying, and the # of the gun linking it to this person. If this person gets a card, require them by law to report to an official within the system once every year to get their card renewed to allow them to carry a gun.
Now what I think should happen if you do not abide by the law follows:
You are caught with an unregistered gun and do not own a card: Jail for 1 year
You are caught with an outdated card and with a correctly registered gun: Loss of card for a year, in order to get it back you must take the class and pass the test again.
you are caught with a card but with a gun not registered to you: Loss of card for 1 year, and depending on the reason or explanation, jail time for how long it is deemed necessary
you are caught without a card but with a gun registered to someone else: Jail for 1 year, and owner of gun loses card for 1 year.
Here is what I think should be done for the whole 2nd amendment, it sounds like a lot of work but it sounds like the best solution to me.
1st off, set up a system to educate and show people how to properly use a gun in situations that are threatening to them and others around them, so they know how to use it properly. I'm thinking it could be something like a hunter safety course (in missouri you have to go through a class to get a hunter certification card to get hunting permits) that people can go to, and once they know enough about how to use a gun and use it safely, make them pass a test in order to get a card allowing then to carry a gun lawfully. Once they pass the test this person would be assigned a number and the gun they would be carrying would be marked with a registered number as well. This card would have the persons name, model of the gun they are carrying, and the # of the gun linking it to this person. If this person gets a card, require them by law to report to an official within the system once every year to get their card renewed to allow them to carry a gun.
Now what I think should happen if you do not abide by the law follows:
You are caught with an unregistered gun and do not own a card: Jail for 1 year
You are caught with an outdated card and with a correctly registered gun: Loss of card for a year, in order to get it back you must take the class and pass the test again.
you are caught with a card but with a gun not registered to you: Loss of card for 1 year, and depending on the reason or explanation, jail time for how long it is deemed necessary
you are caught without a card but with a gun registered to someone else: Jail for 1 year, and owner of gun loses card for 1 year.
Agree for the most part. Also guns should be locked away in a secure place away from children when not in use.
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that it is unconstitutional to execute someone who rapes a child, issuing a broad decision that reserves the death penalty for murderers and those who commit crimes against the state.
The Supreme Court, splitting along ideological lines, today declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns for self-defense, striking down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun ownership as unconstitutional.
WASHINGTON - In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.
Here is what I think should be done for the whole 2nd amendment, it sounds like a lot of work but it sounds like the best solution to me.
1st off, set up a system to educate and show people how to properly use a gun in situations that are threatening to them and others around them, so they know how to use it properly. I'm thinking it could be something like a hunter safety course (in missouri you have to go through a class to get a hunter certification card to get hunting permits) that people can go to, and once they know enough about how to use a gun and use it safely, make them pass a test in order to get a card allowing then to carry a gun lawfully. Once they pass the test this person would be assigned a number and the gun they would be carrying would be marked with a registered number as well. This card would have the persons name, model of the gun they are carrying, and the # of the gun linking it to this person. If this person gets a card, require them by law to report to an official within the system once every year to get their card renewed to allow them to carry a gun.
Now what I think should happen if you do not abide by the law follows:
You are caught with an unregistered gun and do not own a card: Jail for 1 year
You are caught with an outdated card and with a correctly registered gun: Loss of card for a year, in order to get it back you must take the class and pass the test again.
you are caught with a card but with a gun not registered to you: Loss of card for 1 year, and depending on the reason or explanation, jail time for how long it is deemed necessary
you are caught without a card but with a gun registered to someone else: Jail for 1 year, and owner of gun loses card for 1 year.
That is well and good but I have an issue with this card system. Please read the following:
"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."
Now to me, any kind of program that would limit the availability to LAW ABIDING citizens is unconstitutional. We can register them all we want but to take the right away without a trial is unconstitutional. Not to mention that every study that has ever been done on the subject shows that towns and communities with liberal firearms laws (i.e. it is easier to own one) have substantially lower crime rates.
As for the death penalty I have to say that I am a person who has very mixed feelings on the subject. I agree that child rapists are less than the scum that gets scraped off the bus station bathroom floors. I just can not rectify killing another human other than in self defense. On top of that, to put a person to death costs a whole lot of money. The latest analysis shows that to run the whole gamut of required appeals, etc. costs as much as keeping a person in Maximum security for over 100 years. I say just put the pedo's in General Population at the State Penn and let Darwin's "Origins of Man" play out.
GITMO...I actually served there back in 2003 when I was in the Marine Corps. Forget the wonderful treatment these people receive. That is an argument all to itself. My whole argument boils down to they are not citizens of the USA so why should they receive rights that are reserved for citizens of the USA? Some have said "Well if a foreign national commits murder in New York then they go to the courts." Very true but the people did not commit a crime in the US. They were captured as a result of combat in a foreign country. They are not on US soil but land that is Cuban and leased by the US. US bases are not like US Embassies. An Embassy is sovereign US Land. A military base is being rented. So again, I say that the people in Gitmo get held as long as their bretheren continue to attack us.
__________________
Who's John Galt.
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2
Mmmm . . . I agree with the second two without a second thought.
But the first one I have mixed feelings about . . . I've noticed a lot of you would reserve the death penalty for murderers. I agree. But honestly, I think rapists, especially child rapists, are ten times as bad as murderers. The only reason I would agree with this ruling is because I think death is letting them off easy. Rapists should have to live the rest of their lives with the guilt of what they did. And I definitely agree that rapists should be made Big G's play toy for life
Or maybe we should go back to the ancient Roman tradition of grinding rapists' balls between two stones, that'll solve the problem. I just feel sorry for the person carrying out the punishment.
Mmmm . . . I agree with the second two without a second thought.
But the first one I have mixed feelings about . . . I've noticed a lot of you would reserve the death penalty for murderers. I agree. But honestly, I think rapists, especially child rapists, are ten times as bad as murderers. The only reason I would agree with this ruling is because I think death is letting them off easy. Rapists should have to live the rest of their lives with the guilt of what they did. And I definitely agree that rapists should be made Big G's play toy for life
Or maybe we should go back to the ancient Roman tradition of grinding rapists' balls between two stones, that'll solve the problem. I just feel sorry for the person carrying out the punishment.
fire ants crawl on the scrotum, then burrow inside, stinging the whole way.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
I think it is wrong to kill any human being, except in self defense and certain medical situations, so I agree with the first decision, and I hope in the future that the death penalty is banned for all crimes. From a practical standpoint, as mentioned, it's been shown by various studies that it actually costs more to execute a person than to keep them in prison. I also don't believe the death penalty serves a deterent to crime. In addition, out justice system is biased, in terms of race and class, meaning some individuals are much more likely to receive these extreme punishments than other, not because of the crime they committed, but because of their race or social status, and that just adds to the injustice. I also think that the likelyhood is that innocent people have been executed, and that's simply unacceptable.
In terms of the second decision, I agree with their interpretation of the second amendment, and I support the right of citizens to protect themselves with firearms.
As for the Gitmo decision, I see that as positive in two respects. First of all, even though they are not citizens of the U.S., I believe as human beings they deserve the right to challenge their detainment, I think that imprisoning people indefinitely without charges is a violation of basic human rights. Another reason I see this as a positive decision, is that, in a time when the rights of U.S. citizens are being restricted and regularly violated, I believe this serves to strengthen the standing of our rights.
As for the Gitmo decision, I see that as positive in two respects. First of all, even though they are not citizens of the U.S., I believe as human beings they deserve the right to challenge their detainment, I think that imprisoning people indefinitely without charges is a violation of basic human rights. Another reason I see this as a positive decision, is that, in a time when the rights of U.S. citizens are being restricted and regularly violated, I believe this serves to strengthen the standing of our rights.
This is all well and good if it were crimes against society (i.e. robbery, murder, rape). This is war though. There are different rules for enemy combatants, prisoners or war, etc. We never allowed the Germans who were kept at POW camps in Georgia access to the US court system. Simply put, you get caught fighting against us, you get held until either the conflict is over, or there is a prisoner exchange. As a soldier, or combatant, you have no right to redress or appeal. That is for civil/criminal issues. If we catch some insurgent robbing somebody then yes, they should have legal protections under the country they are being detained by. That same insurgent kills a soldier or is captured on the field then they are combatants and therefore prisoners of war.
This goes to the whole mindset that got us in trouble in the first place. That is a mindset of Law Enforcement. The Police will prevent further terrorist attacks, the FBI will run the show and keep us safe. Sorry folks, 9/11 changed that. The department of defense is responsible for keeping enemy agents from killing US citizens now. When the DOD gets involved a whole new set of laws comes on board. The laws of war have never been held up to be equal to the civil/criminal code of our country. When it does we rund into issues like trying to convict Marines for murder when they were defending themselves.
__________________
Who's John Galt.
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2
The Geneva Convention requires that prisoners receive a fair trial.
A fair trial yes. But the question is by whom and under which set of laws? My assertion is still the same. There should not be access to our civilian court system granted to these people.
They fought in a combat action so by tradition and Geneva Conventions it should be a "competent tribunal."
Also please keep the following excerpt from the Third Geneva Convention:
"militias...including those of organized resistance movements...having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance...conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"
These folks do not merit the protections of the Geneva conventions. This is only one little excerpt showing that these combatants do not adhere to the rules of war and therefore should not be afforded the protections of the rules we follow. My simple solution is that we treat their prisoners as they have treated ours.
__________________
Who's John Galt.
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2
Even if they don't fall under the definition of the Third Geneva Convention, which the Supreme Court has ruled they do, the Fourth Geneva Convention is broader in its application.
Even if they don't fall under the definition of the Third Geneva Convention, which the Supreme Court has ruled they do, the Fourth Geneva Convention is broader in its application.
And this is why we are discussing this here becauase of the controversy of it all. It would seem to me that we should err on the side of protecting ourselves as opposed to the side of granting rights to people under our own constitution when there is no treaty saying this is the course we must follow.
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of Judges making new laws and granting new rights to new classes of plaintiffs. Any time that foreign law is cited as the basis of any decision made by the supreme court I immediately start getting curious as to why we can not come up with our own justifications for the legal reasoning behind decisions. The simple answer is that American traditions of legal logic do not allow certain decisions to be made and therefore the justices who make these rulings have to go outside the country to find justification (i.e. Kelo v. New London).
Wake up people. Your rights are being eroded away in the name of national security and the greater social good.
__________________
Who's John Galt.
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" - Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 2
Recent Supreme Court Rulings
