SHOCKNAWE
NES Member
It’s a shame they can’t just slap a “Terrorist” attack on it and go from there, all these legal bullshit different roads and terminology ends up protecting this type of animal piece of shit.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Active Shooter in CO, 10 Dead
- Thread starter FalArAk
- Start date
Well, don't go too far. We've had this discussion before.
Your "bullshit different roads and terminology" is what the Constitution calls "due process," and I like it more than I hate this shooter.
If this guy is as guilty as we all know he is, then the state should have no difficulty making their case under the Constitution of Colorado. I have no wish to make it more easy for the government to prosecute people, thus giving them more power over us. You trust them a lot more than I do.
mothybee
NES Member
Though I do agree about due process, Colorado had him before which would make him PP but, all he had to say was white devil made me do it and "PUFF" poor baby are you feeling better now?
SHOCKNAWE
NES Member
We have gotten into it yes. But I don’t remember ever saying not give a person a trial? I’m all for giving the guy a trial over a “Terrorist” attack along with murder charges, rather than the “Murder Charges” alone. The bullshit twists and turns are exactly what you and I both know they are and it has nothing to do with due process in my opinion.
Lol. You were advocating, earlier, for simply letting the Feds take over just so that you could put him in the penitentiary of your choice. Fortunately, the Feds don't get to swoop in whenever they want to and screw people out of their STATE due process. That's not the way the law works.
SHOCKNAWE
NES Member
Not sure what’s funny? I made it clear this was a Terrorist attack and should be labeled as such. If you want to advocate for this piece of shit then go for it but if he hit someone you love would you still feel so motivated to not slap a terrorist label on this event?
AHM
NES Member
federal-state-court-relations
F*ck him , the guy never hunted a day in his life and his claims to gun ownership are dubious at best.Rosenthal does not waste an opportunity!
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @Adrian_Walker.
John Rosenthal has been a hunter longer than he has been a gun control activist. So he has a fascination with what government is, and isn’t, willing to regulate when it comes to weapons.
Massachusetts proves that we donât have to live with mass shootings - The Boston Globe
Many people have forgotten that several assault weapons actually were banned from 1994 to 2004. They remain illegal in Massachusetts.www.bostonglobe.com
“When you hunt — and the NRA has no problem with needing a license to hunt — you can have three rounds [of ammunition] for ducks and five rounds for deer,” Rosenthal explained Tuesday. “But when you want to hunt humans, there’s no limit.”
Our nation’s sick devotion to weaponry is front and center once again in the wake of two mass shootings in just one week. They claimed the lives of eight victims in Georgia and 10 more Monday in Boulder, Colo.
Following a mass shooting in 2014, there was a mordant headline in The Onion that summed up our failure to stop these tragedies: " ‘No Way To Prevent This’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.” It wasn’t funny, or intended to be.
President Biden called Tuesday for an assault weapons ban, but the political will to address this deadly issue has been in short supply for ages.
As the head of the advocacy group Stop Handgun Violence, Rosenthal has been at the forefront of sensible gun legislation for nearly 30 years. He was the guy behind the billboard on the Mass. Pike that tallied the lives lost to gun violence.
Like other activists, Rosenthal believes that a culture of mass murder isn’t something we have to live with.
And he believes Massachusetts — which boasts the nation’s lowest rate of gun deaths — offers the proof of that.
“You don’t need an assault weapon or a large-capacity magazine for anything other than killing people,” he said. “Or outgunning cops.”
The NRA and its sycophants in government like to pretend that gun control is about taking up all the guns.
While I would be fine with a country without guns, that argument is little more than a scare tactic. Ridding ourselves of this horror — or at least greatly reducing it — can be done through a few steps.
The weapons of mass destruction — the assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines — have to go. Many people have forgotten that several assault weapons actually were banned from 1994 to 2004. They remain illegal in Massachusetts.
Other Massachusetts policies should be adopted elsewhere. Licensing and background checks for gun owners are essential. Here, local police chiefs can refuse licenses to people who have passed background checks when certain other red flags are present.
Finally, gun manufacturers should be held legally responsible for producing weapons that can be used safely.
“None of the things we’ve done cause any inconvenience to responsible gun owners,” Rosenthal said. “But they don’t give unrestricted access to guns to people who can’t pass background checks or who want to kill a lot of people quickly.”
Like many of us, Rosenthal has watched with horror as the mass shootings have mounted, without any meaningful response from government — many calls to action, yes, but little action.
Sandy Hook changed nothing. Parkland changed nothing. The killing of 60 people in Las Vegas in 2017 changed nothing. Despite huge public support for banning weapons of mass destruction and for getting guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, our so-called leaders shrug.
“Three of our major gun laws were signed by Republican governors. And they didn’t lose their seats.”
The why of America’s permanent epidemic of mass shootings is complicated, and varies. But the how is maddeningly consistent. Killing large numbers of people is simply far too easy in this country.
There is no constitutional right to slaughter other people. But we have a history of being outraged for a while, and then looking away until the next tragedy.
We talk a lot about how much we value human life. Ending the carnage would be one way to prove it.
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
I'm definitely not in favor of the definition of "terrorism" expanding into areas that used to be called "crimes," if that's what you're asking.
The State loves to label people in a way that makes it easier to infringe on their rights. A gun owner ought not to need that concept explained to them. To see how this works, just take a look at the USA Patriot Act.
richc
NES Member
News says today the rifle was purchased by the shooter from a gun dealer. Yet I heard he had a record of assault.
Wouldn't a criminal assault charge make him a prohibited person? If so, what happened????
Wouldn't a criminal assault charge make him a prohibited person? If so, what happened????
Coincidence the are hearing arguments in SCOTUS today on warrantless searches and confiscation of firearms if the police or family believe you are a danger to yourself or someone else. Every judge from Trumps admin is actually in support of it. Kavanaugh argued the police don’t have time to make sure the complaint is actually valid because time is of the essence. If I was the lawyer I would have asked so the Police come in, no warrant , search around and take all the firearms and ammo and then leave the guy there with knives, rope, poisons ? Wtf.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
kevin9
NES Member
Yep, it was a state 3rd degree assault charge, that even though it is punishable by up to two years, is a state charge so it does not apply.
Suspect in Boulder mass shooting was arrested for attack on Arvada West High School classmate
The 21-year-old Arvada man accused of killing 10 people in a Boulder King Soopers on Monday was arrested for attacking a classmate at Arvada West High School in 2017. Arrest documents from the encounter say Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa stood up in a classroom, walked over to the victim and “cold...
coloradosun.com
Third Degree Assault in Colorado - CRS § 18-3-204
CRS § 18-3-204 defines 3rd-degree assault in Colorado as inflicting bodily injury knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence.
www.shouselaw.com
Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person: convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; who is...
Update: It was a state conviction so he was NOT prohibited.
Last edited:
What the other guy said but for example in NH slapping someone around a little who you don't live with probably is a non prohibiting misdemeanor carrying 12 months max sentence. Used to be like that for any misdemeanor but now domestic is its own special thing, apparently its worse if its your wife? Hmmm I disagree, but that's the law.
It was 3rd degree assault, and although it is a misdemeanor, it is punishable by up to two years, which AFAIK means he should have been prohibited.
Suspect in Boulder mass shooting was arrested for attack on Arvada West High School classmate
The 21-year-old Arvada man accused of killing 10 people in a Boulder King Soopers on Monday was arrested for attacking a classmate at Arvada West High School in 2017. Arrest documents from the encounter say Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa stood up in a classroom, walked over to the victim and “cold...
Third Degree Assault in Colorado - CRS § 18-3-204
CRS § 18-3-204 defines 3rd-degree assault in Colorado as inflicting bodily injury knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence.
Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person: convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; who is...www.atf.gov
There is some technicality that says 2 years under certain circumstances, like if the state calls it a misdemeanor I believe. Such is why MA uses lots of 2.5 year sentences, required to seal the deal.
strange uptick in liberal douches on the forum lately.
Sen Toomey was the news trying to make the case for background checks doe any commercial dealer at a storefront or online or at a show. He said Schumer wants checks on anything as well as full bans but knows he won’t get it but will use it to blame the republicans. Seems Manchin is on board with Toomey again
kevin9
NES Member
Thanks Got it. Found the relevant law: 18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions
I stand corrected. Will edit previous post.
AHM
NES Member
Check out the Rugar AR Price Line:
Howie Carr Show delivers!
More concerned about the uptick in strange liberal douches on the forum lately...
SHOCKNAWE
NES Member
Damn I’m curious what it would take for you to be ok with defining terrorism. So you would have rather a Suffolk County Court handle the Marathon incident and have Tsarnev serve his time in Shirley? So this guy an ISIS sympathizer shoots multiple people killing 10 in a F’king grocery store and you want it labeled just a crime? I’m not following you thinking you need to explain any concept to this gun owner because I’m well versed in the State infringing on our rights but we are not talking about infringement on rights we are talking a mass killing of people in a reign of terror and labeling it terrorism.
For a while now.
1. Power corrupts. So, the State has a tendency to go overboard. As you well know.
2. Our legal traditions grant the State the power to prosecute offenses.
3. The State often prosecutes the wrong people.
4. In any criminal prosecution, the State has ALL the power.
5. Western legal tradition, starting waaaaaay back in 1215, has sought to limit that power in order to give accused people a fighting chance. In case the State has gotten it wrong. Which it often does.
You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with Magna Carta.
This particular case happened 2,000 miles away less than 24 hours ago. You and I have NO IDEA what motivated this criminal. Your confidence in his guilt as a terrorist and, I suspect, your eagerness to lock him up forever and throw away the key or, preferably, simply shoot him behind the jail, is exactly why the State needs to be forced to be fair to accused people. This guy? Sure. He's guilty of murder at the least, and he'll be in jail forever.
But if it's easy to railroad him by blithely labeling him a terrorist just because you dislike his last name, it'll be pretty easy for President Ocasio-Cortes to label you as a terrorist down the road, simply because she dislikes your lifestyle and choice of hobby.
Me, I prefer to fight the State's efforts to make themselves stronger at every turn. YMMV.
Varmint
NES Member
I think we’re way past the point where we can use words or label control to stop the US government from its march toward tyranny.
Similar threads
