Posted on 06/12/2002 11:57:24 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:38:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
VICTORVILLE, Calif. (AP) - A man described by a judge as "an evil monster" was sentenced to 25 years in prison for using a baseball bat, metal pipe and golf club to attack a 12-year-old Halloween trick-or-treater on his doorstep.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Second Amendment.
Next question.
You moron, IT HAPPENED WHILE THEY ARE ILLEGAL! So what are you jabbering about?
Because the Constitution does not specifically prohibit Congress from doing something is not a grant of power to do it.
So it is your belief that drugs are responsible and not the people that commit the acts? Shouldn't you be calling for his release and rehabilitation since it is obvious that he wasn't in control of his faculties at the time? It was, after all, the evil drug(tm) that made him do it.
A beautiful young girl was recently killed at a hockey game by violent players who didn't know what they were doing. They'd even laughed at the dangers to bystanders in the past. They weren't laughing after they'd beaned the poor girl in the temple with a hockey puck.
And damn if Skakel didn't bean his girlfriend with a golf club after being drunk, implicating both golf and alcohol.
So combining with the above article in which the victim was beaned with a baseball bat, it is clear the only thing illegal in all these cases was the amphetamine. If we'd banned alcohol, hockey pucks, golf clubs and baseball bats, this could all have been avoided (since drugs in general are already banned, unfortunately we can't blame them)
Possessing a weapon is not a threat. Pointing it at someone is. The threat is not the device itself but the act of pointing it at somebody.
The same rule applies to explosives. The device itself is not the threat. The threat stems from the act of pointing it at someone (bringing it to within range of another). Because explosives are indiscriminate, anyone in the blast radius is essentially having a weapon pointed at them. Unless they have consented to this condition, they could make a legitimate argument that a weapon is being pointed at them and would thus be morally justified in the application of force to defend themselves.
The right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right. Smoking dope and shooting methamphetamine are not.
The right to keep and bear arms is essential to personal and national security and self-defense. Smoking dope and shooting methampetamine are utterly devoid of any virtue outside of getting a user stoned so he can act like an ass (or, as in this case, beat a 12 year-old boy nearly to death).
In short, there is essential and transcendent virtue in the Second Amendment that justifies denying power to government to prohibit personal ownership of guns despite the fact that some citizens will misuse guns.
There is no essential virtue in dope and meth use. They are useful only to advance George Soros's "doper-victim" nanny government socialist agenda.
Whooo boy, did you just let a stinker. So Congress can do anything not in the Constitution? So they could take everything you own? The states are meaningless and federalism has come to naught? In other words, you believe yourself a slave?
I think you misunderstood what I said.
Apparently, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable rights to you. Therefore, let's just all pack it in boys, where are the manacles? Sign me up first to be a puddinhead who can't even control my bladder without help from the government.
Actually, I don't know anyone who does meth, plenty who do MJ. But since meth is so easy to make (in a bath tub) I suspect it's harder TO FIND for most people because it just isn't as popular cause of the side effects. But the cops find a lab once a week in the hotels, so it is about as easy to find as can be in out already utopian drug-illegal world.
Do you have any alcohol in your house? Any mind-altering drugs in your medicine cabinet? Pain-relievers? Sleeping pills? Anti-depressants? Stimulants? Muscle-relaxants? Cold-medicine? Would your neighbors be morally justified in dragging you out of your house and kicking your ass because you consumed an intoxicant?
Just as leftist liberals like to blame guns for crime you like to blame drugs. It isn't the use of something that is a crime. It is the misuse.
You have a habit of changing the subject when you get your butt kicked in an argument. Stick to the subject. - 56 by OWK
The subject is: can an inanimate object be so much of a threat, that by owning it, you violate your neighbors rights? - 58 by Texaggie79
To: OWK
amen to that one, bro. this shlub will do everything except admit that he/she is a pure statist.
even after confronted with the question: if it is not YOUR life based on what you can do with it, barring anarchy, WHOSE life is it? i still have to get an answer on that one. since i never have, not even once, i no longer correspond with them. they are like babies who plug their ears and say "nanana cant hear you", when faced with their own identity.
the children will not admit that their beliefs imply the life of the individual belongs to the state.
--------------------------------------
Yep, once again tex-baby has demonstrated his sophomoronic inability to present a coherent logical point on 'inanimate objects'. - His infantile stance is a wonder to behold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.