Judge sentences man to 25 years for beating trick-or-treater

AP ^ | June 12, 2002

[Cultural Jihad]

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.

[tpaine]

There are thousands of unconstitutional laws, and people are convicted of them every day. - Most gun law violations, for instance, are even denyed appeal.

Does that fact prove your point?

Mine is that prohibitions on guns, - or drugs, violate the constitution. - Why your 'stance' is otherwise is beyond logic.

[Texaggie79]

So, your problem is making a distinguishment between guns and drugs? Let me refer you to the second amendment. If, indeed prohibition of all substances and property were forbidden by the USC, why, then, would the second amendment be required?

[Roscoe]

Equating drugs with guns is Libertarianism's most pernicious and persistently advanced fallacy.

[tpaine]

Laws that prohibit the ownership of substances where mere possesion is a threat to others,

You have never established that the mere possession of ANY mind altering sustance is such a threat. -- Neither has the state. - That is merely an unsupported opinion.

and is supported by the majority of the state are neither arbitrary or purposeless.

Makes no difference what a majority thinks. -- We have constitutional law to follow on such matters.

If the state, without consent of the majority suddenly banned bicycles just for the heck of it, that would be arbitrary and purposeless. --

You got it on bikes, -- to bad you can't understand the same principle appies to booze, guns, -- and even drugs.

[Texaggie79]

That is because the majority of the state supports hard drug prohibition, therefore it is not arbitrary; and they support that position because they view it as too much of a threat, therefore it is not purposeless.

[Roscoe]

You have never established that the mere possession of ANY mind altering sustance is such a threat.

I can just imagine the drug dealer arguing such nonsense in court:

"I wasn't going to sell those crack bindles to addicts, your Honor. I just like carrying them around in my pocket for, er, umm, good luck. Yeah, good luck, that's the ticket!"

[Alan Chapman]

If both are observed doing so and only the black child is forced to leave, that child's rights have been violated. 14th Amendment.

This doesn't answer my initial question. Where do rights come from and how are they defined? From your posts and quotes it would seem you believe rights come from society. So, why didn't you just say so in the first place?

Now that we've established that you believe rights come from society how are said rights defined?

[stands2reason]

I did most of my drinking before I was 21. What's this "back-alley" nonsense? There was always someone with alcohol or who could get it. There are alot of legal adults that don't mind drinking for free.

[tpaine]

There are thousands of unconstitutional laws, and people are convicted of them every day. - Most gun law violations, for instance, are even denyed appeal.
Does that fact prove your point?

Mine is that prohibitions on guns, - or drugs, violate the constitution. - Why your 'stance' is otherwise is beyond logic. - 321 by tpaine

So, your problem is making a distinguishment between guns and drugs?

Not my problem, obviously, -- that example is directed at YOUR misapplied stance. - Learn to read.

Let me refer you to the second amendment. If, indeed prohibition of all substances and property were forbidden by the USC, why, then, would the second amendment be required?

The history of the BOR's is freely available. You need the study, fer sure.

[Texaggie79]

Another good point. I had 20 times the access to alcohol in High school than I did illegal drugs. Both were illegal for me to buy, but why was alcohol sooo much easier?

Because it is a legal substance. Do the same with hard drugs and they would become 20 times more accessible to high school kids.

[Alan Chapman]

I tried explaining to Texaggie79 that it is not the use of something that is a crime but rather the misuse. Hence possession and use of guns can no more be a crime than possession and use of drugs. He doesn't accept that line of reasoning.

[Texaggie79]

Having problems coming up with an answer I see. Lemme know when you come up with something......

[Texaggie79]

Tell me the proper use of Crystal Meth, or crack please............ Now try to tell me that that use is a responsible and safe one.........

Didn't think so....

[Roscoe]

This doesn't answer my initial question. Where do rights come from and how are they defined?

Depends on the pool, doesn't it? The right to use a public pool might be extended by a city government. The regulations defining the manner in which such rights may be enjoyed are the subject of federal, state and local law and regulation.

Where would you contend that the right to use a public pool comes from, if not society?

[Alan Chapman]

Let me refer you to the second amendment. If, indeed prohibition of all substances and property were forbidden by the USC, why, then, would the second amendment be required?

Of the Bill of Rights, Alexander Hamilton said:

"They are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a...pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

[Roscoe]

Hence possession and use of guns can no more be a crime

It's a crime for a lot of convicted felons.

[FastCoyote]

"Just one question, yes or no. Should alcohol be outlawed?"
Some is, some isn't. 50% vodka is legal, 50% beer isn't.

---

What is so hard about a yes/no question? Are you so dense that you are incapable of answering, or are you just being Clintonian (depends on what the definition of yes is)

I am asking you, Roscoe, for your position on whether you believe all alcoholic beverages should be outlawed or not. Even a child can answer a yes/no question of this type. You are against drugs because they cause deaths. Therefore logically you are against alcohol, so a simple yes is all that is needed.

Of course, you have no logical position, you are analgous to the idiot Mrs. Swan character on Mad TV, just looking to get a rise out of people without ever answering a question. Quite pathetic.

[Alan Chapman]

Tell me the proper use of Crystal Meth, or crack please............ Now try to tell me that that use is a responsible and safe one.........

Totally irrelevant.

[Alan Chapman]

So, do you believe rights come from government, society, or Ben Franklin?

Where do rights come from and how are they defined?