RE: What if it wasn't a gun?

RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JeffBC -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/16/2014 9:11:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: So now you're gonna want me to get specific about the other time that was even more than the admittedly rough 10 year ago time frame. Relax. My interest in the subject really isn't all that consuming. I was just curious about whether the comments were more than speculation. Heh, can't tell you. Too long ago and I can't remember the source. Even if I did and the source was the judge himself that still makes it nothing more than an opinion. If you want to know how I flagged it in my head it got tagged as "reasonable source, not the law even if it is true, may or may not be why I never made it onto a jury."

TheHeretic -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/16/2014 9:14:50 PM)
But why assume it is because techies are smart? It might also be discrimination based on a stereotype of lousy social skills and personal hygiene, or a concern that you'd be completely unable to play well with others in a jury room.

JeffBC -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/16/2014 9:22:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic But why assume it is because techies are smart? It might also be discrimination based on a stereotype of lousy social skills and personal hygiene, or a concern that you'd be completely unable to play well with others in a jury room. I didn't assume that. It's what I was told and it was NOT smart. I do remember near exact verbiage from the second go around. Honestly though, the whole thing with engineers on juries was nearly as heinous to me as being threatened from the bench by the judge with his robe and gavel and all that with direct and immediate legal action if I... you know... thought I should exercise judgement while judging someone. What other possible reason could there be for "a jury of your peers"? Yet it turns out the legal professional has a field day with the idea that those peers might... you know... have some purpose other than to be led around by the nose.

RottenJohnny -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/16/2014 9:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic But why assume it is because techies are smart? It might also be discrimination based on a stereotype of lousy social skills and personal hygiene, or a concern that you'd be completely unable to play well with others in a jury room. Shit! I paid good money for those classes on personal hygiene and all this time it's been my social skills? Oh well. Fuck it...fuck this whole thing.

PeonForHer -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/17/2014 2:55:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I dress as Santa for the local children's home and the family Christmas party. Telling me I should shoot children is, frankly, just more than a bit stupid. OK. Hmm. That was a joke, JLF. In truth, I would suggest that you not shoot children if you can avoid it, whether or not you're dressed as Santa.

Yachtie -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/17/2014 7:14:33 AM)
fr The NRA. [:D]

Zonie63 -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/17/2014 8:21:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic But why assume it is because techies are smart? It might also be discrimination based on a stereotype of lousy social skills and personal hygiene, or a concern that you'd be completely unable to play well with others in a jury room. I didn't assume that. It's what I was told and it was NOT smart. I do remember near exact verbiage from the second go around. Honestly though, the whole thing with engineers on juries was nearly as heinous to me as being threatened from the bench by the judge with his robe and gavel and all that with direct and immediate legal action if I... you know... thought I should exercise judgement while judging someone. What other possible reason could there be for "a jury of your peers"? Yet it turns out the legal professional has a field day with the idea that those peers might... you know... have some purpose other than to be led around by the nose. My father was an engineer and was picked for a federal jury once. The trial was related to illegally modifying a firearm, although it was cut short when the defendant changed his plea. My own experience for jury duty has been pretty uneventful, except one time I was a prospective juror for a murder trial. Everyone who was there was asked certain questions and asked to get up and talk about themselves. When it came time to actually choose among us who was going to impaneled on the jury, I wasn't picked. I wasn't really given a reason, nor did it really matter at that point. I did mention that I had an uncle who was a lawyer, as that was a question asked of everyone. I also had somewhat long hair at the time. Another prospective juror who looked quite the head-banger was also dismissed. They also didn't want the guy who was against the death penalty, nor the young lady who was a member of Amnesty International.

Phydeaux -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/17/2014 9:20:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic But why assume it is because techies are smart? It might also be discrimination based on a stereotype of lousy social skills and personal hygiene, or a concern that you'd be completely unable to play well with others in a jury room. I didn't assume that. It's what I was told and it was NOT smart. I do remember near exact verbiage from the second go around. Honestly though, the whole thing with engineers on juries was nearly as heinous to me as being threatened from the bench by the judge with his robe and gavel and all that with direct and immediate legal action if I... you know... thought I should exercise judgement while judging someone. What other possible reason could there be for "a jury of your peers"? Yet it turns out the legal professional has a field day with the idea that those peers might... you know... have some purpose other than to be led around by the nose. I've been up for jury duty many many times. I never survive voir dire. Do you believe in the death penalty. Yes. Usually gets me struck by the defense. Do you believe in jury nullification Yes Usually gets me struck by the prosecutor.

Focus50 -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/17/2014 2:49:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR Every time there's been a mass killing by gun and anyone has posted an anti-gun-sounding comment, pro-gunners have leaped in to bemoan the tasteless 'making of political points' at a time when we should be feeling sad about the deaths, offering our condolences to the grieving families, etc. That usually happens in the first few posts. Just saying. Expressing condolences...? Feeling sad for strangers who die every second of every day in all manner of tragic circumstances...? Or eulogies - how Jo Blo always had a kind word and would do anything for anyone blah blah - esp when some reporter can jam a mic & cam in a grieving relative's face? It's all too nauseating to contemplate, let alone express hollow sentiments as a tangent to the actual topic. To tow the politically correct line because "everyone else" does or (my fav) "should", is not for me. I'll save it for those I actually know and esp have some personal investment with. And for those who don't recall, I'm a gun owner moreso than the usual pro-gun/2nd amend nazi who habitually carry out drive-by attacks of anyone against at CM. Oz has a different kind of freedom and democracy to the norm here - one where the body count is a factor in framing gun ownership rights. Honestly Peon, I'd likely shoot myself if I burdened myself with grief every time there's a mindless tragedy involving strangers I don't know and/or never will. Focus.

JeffBC -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/17/2014 3:43:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Do you believe in the death penalty. Yes. Do you believe in jury nullification Yes Well, that would certainly answer for me also and the jury nullification thing carries more weight than some passing comment I heard in a hallway. Honestly, on the nullification thing I wasn't too upset about the fact that such a thing exists and they wish I didn't know that. I was pretty miffed at a judge threatening me on the topic. Conveniently I don't threaten well, even when it's a judge, gavel, and jail time.

PeonForHer -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/17/2014 3:54:13 PM)
quote: And for those who don't recall, I'm a gun owner moreso than the usual pro-gun/2nd amend nazi who habitually carry out drive-by attacks of anyone against at CM. Oz has a different kind of freedom and democracy to the norm here - one where the body count is a factor in framing gun ownership rights. I dare say Oz's concept of freedom, at least, is the norm, Focus. It seems to be peculiar to US culture that the ideas of 'freedom' and 'gun ownership' have become so inextricably bound up with one another.

jlf1961 -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/17/2014 4:24:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: And for those who don't recall, I'm a gun owner moreso than the usual pro-gun/2nd amend nazi who habitually carry out drive-by attacks of anyone against at CM. Oz has a different kind of freedom and democracy to the norm here - one where the body count is a factor in framing gun ownership rights. I dare say Oz's concept of freedom, at least, is the norm, Focus. It seems to be peculiar to US culture that the ideas of 'freedom' and 'gun ownership' have become so inextricably bound up with one another. You ever think that the two are linked because of a few private citizens who owned guns and help from the french we kinda threw off the tyrannical rule of say, King George the asshole? We kinda got tired of being taxed out the ass, having soldiers shoved into our homes, told what we can and cannot make in our towns to force us to buy shit from the home country. I do agree that there needs to be some control on who can buy a gun, but an outright ban is out of the question.

PeonForHer -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/17/2014 4:40:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: And for those who don't recall, I'm a gun owner moreso than the usual pro-gun/2nd amend nazi who habitually carry out drive-by attacks of anyone against at CM. Oz has a different kind of freedom and democracy to the norm here - one where the body count is a factor in framing gun ownership rights. I dare say Oz's concept of freedom, at least, is the norm, Focus. It seems to be peculiar to US culture that the ideas of 'freedom' and 'gun ownership' have become so inextricably bound up with one another. You ever think that the two are linked because of a few private citizens who owned guns and help from the french we kinda threw off the tyrannical rule of say, King George the asshole? We kinda got tired of being taxed out the ass, having soldiers shoved into our homes, told what we can and cannot make in our towns to force us to buy shit from the home country. I do agree that there needs to be some control on who can buy a gun, but an outright ban is out of the question. Yes, but that was all a while ago, JLF. I mean, you must have been only a young boy at the time. [;)] I agree about the 'outright ban'. It doesn't make sense, given the way the USA has come together as a nation.

Focus50 -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/19/2014 3:39:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: And for those who don't recall, I'm a gun owner moreso than the usual pro-gun/2nd amend nazi who habitually carry out drive-by attacks of anyone against at CM. Oz has a different kind of freedom and democracy to the norm here - one where the body count is a factor in framing gun ownership rights. I dare say Oz's concept of freedom, at least, is the norm, Focus. It seems to be peculiar to US culture that the ideas of 'freedom' and 'gun ownership' have become so inextricably bound up with one another. Once you're a (dead) victim you cease having rights - so it's not a factor in writing gun legislation. I would imagine Americans are rather good at "condolences". Along with actively living in centuries past, as it suits.... wink Focus.

Musicmystery -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/19/2014 3:48:17 PM)
I still think that, as all our self-appointed firearms folk are telling us, if knives are just as good as guns, then we should outfit the U.S. military exclusively with knives, and save billions on firearms contracts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d5jXDvrOu4

TheHeretic -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/19/2014 6:44:47 PM)
Ever heard the expression, 'don't bring a knife to a gunfight?' If we are coming back around to topic though, let's recall that Columbine High was also laced with bombs that didn't go off.

Musicmystery -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/19/2014 6:54:45 PM)
If you'd checked out the link, you'd see that I have. Further, that's my point. You've heard of irony?

TheHeretic -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/19/2014 7:05:12 PM)
Ah - skipped the link.

evesgrden -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/19/2014 7:11:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Hafta agree. (dammit) lol I s'pose guns are harder to access in Canada? I'd assume that if it were in the US, at least one of the 5 deceased woulda had a gun and this would be a hero story instead of a tragedy. Of course, then the perp prolly wouldn't be so foolish as to "only" have a knife.... Gettin' dizzy. For what it's worth OP, pretty sure there hasn't been a knife or other non-gun related spree killing in Oz since the gun crackdown in the wake of Port Arthur, nearly 20 years ago. Focus. How to get a gun in Canada: http://www.howtogetagun.ca/ Not a big deal, and in 2011, less than half of 1% were denied. Kinda like a driver's license. You don't have the right to drive, but it's not a big deal to get a license. The whole thing with the right to bear arms is the definition of "arms". Machine guns ok? Grenade launchers? Missiles? They're just really really big bullets anyway, aren't they? Tanks? That's just a mobility function so citizens should be allowed to own them, yes? I can just road rage with those....... I'm not really directing the above at you Focus, your post just gave me the jumping off point.

jlf1961 -> RE: What if it wasn't a gun? (4/19/2014 7:39:04 PM)
This may surprise many of you people advocating gun control on the grounds that the National Guard replaced the state militias. Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as army units, but air and naval units also exist. The federal government recognizes state defense forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, So, the 2nd amendment still applies as to regards of militias, at least those under the authority of the State Governor. This fact also voids the argument that the 2nd amendment only meant muskets, so in the words of Roy Clark, "Put that in your peacepipe and smoke it Minihaha."

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875