Man kills self at Dicks Sporting Goods

Status
Not open for further replies.
seth72 said:
I feel that you have the right to carry so long as you are not imprisoned. Too bad you don't feel the same way about your fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

So being crazy doesn't disqualify you? Please everyone keep the shouting to a minimum for a second, I'm honestly interested and curious about this line of thought. I've already learned some things and different point of views on here and I'm looking for one different then mine.

I know some guys seem to be absoloutely black and white with the rights thing, someone even through a shall not be infringed at me today. So if the guy from Colorodo gets off from some technicality and doesn't go to prison or be convicted, he should be allowed to still carry weapons? Someone, anyone answer that specific question.
 
Make_MA_2A_Compliant said:
Well, if he isn't in jail, and somehow doesn't get sent to a looney bin then, yes. He should have all his rights restored. He is either a danger to society and should be locked up (jail or looney bin), or he is not and should be free and have all his rights restored.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate the answer. I disagree immensely, only because I know how dumb the Justice system can be and good guys get sent to jail ad bad guys get freed sometimes. If he wasn't found guilty because of a clerical error or even a serious bad process issue (Miranda rights), doesn't change the fact he's psycho. We all know that and agree on that ( I hope). But I respect your point of view.
 
guess he took the "blow out" special literally. [laugh]

too soon?

prayers for the families and those involved. [sad]
 
PrimusTactical said:
Thank you. I appreciate the answer. I disagree immensely, only because I know how dumb the Justice system can be and good guys get sent to jail ad bad guys get freed sometimes.
Click to expand...

If people (juries, voters, polititians, prosecutors, etc) aren't smart enough to figure out who should be in jail or not, what makes you think they are smart enough to determine who should be a prohibited person or not? Your argument for restricting rights is a great argument for NOT restricting rights.
 
I sleep secure in the knowledge that every schizophrenic is securely locked behind bars. Except that guy I gave some money to in Worcester a few weeks ago.
 
TomH said:
If people (juries, voters, polititians, prosecutors, etc) aren't smart enough to figure out who should be in jail or not, what makes you think they are smart enough to determine who should be a prohibited person or not? Your argument for restricting rights is a great argument for NOT restricting rights.
Click to expand...

Like I said, sometimes it never gets to the jury. There are a million cases where a legitimately bad guy has gotten off the hook because of a procedural error (please don't blow up ijgblewirgbeliugebieubirgber cops!!! stomping heads shooting backs kicking dogs!!!) such as Miranda warnings or evidence, or who knows. It's out there if you want to look it up. Sometimes you have a really bad dude and someone makes a mistake because they are human and then the bad dude gets off. My point is he's still BAD even though he's not in jail or commited...

- - - Updated - - -

theGringo said:
I sleep secure in the knowledge that every schizophrenic is securely locked behind bars. Except that guy I gave some money to in Worcester a few weeks ago.
Click to expand...
+1
 
PrimusTactical said:
Like I said, sometimes it never gets to the jury. There are a million cases where a legitimately bad guy has gotten off the hook because of a procedural error (please don't blow up ijgblewirgbeliugebieubirgber cops!!! stomping heads shooting backs kicking dogs!!!) such as Miranda warnings or evidence, or who knows. It's out there if you want to look it up. Sometimes you have a really bad dude and someone makes a mistake because they are human and then the bad dude gets off. My point is he's still BAD even though he's not in jail or commited...
Click to expand...

That's usually refered to as the "price of liberty", and it is a good thing. Read up on it.
 
PrimusTactical said:
Thank you. I appreciate the answer. I disagree immensely, only because I know how dumb the Justice system can be and good guys get sent to jail ad bad guys get freed sometimes. If he wasn't found guilty because of a clerical error or even a serious bad process issue (Miranda rights), doesn't change the fact he's psycho. We all know that and agree on that ( I hope). But I respect your point of view.
Click to expand...

The fact that you admit good guys get sent to jail should be all you need to see there should be no prohibited person once they are released. Bad enough they did time but to then strip them further of their rights.

- - - Updated - - -

TomH said:
That's usually refered to as the "price of liberty", and it is a good thing. Read up on it.
Click to expand...

This guy gets it.
 
If you're so "bad" that your life is not worth protecting, you belong in jail. Period. Anything less is a concession that somewhere out there is a person who is so all-fired important that they get to tell you whether or not your life is worth anything. That same person also has jurisdiction to set the parameters by which they form their own, arbitrary judgement. That's a slippery slope that's not worth starting down, and is founded on the idea that one man has the right to tell another man his life is worthless. The only events that should cause such a determination should be those that negatively impact others to such a degree that they need to face a trial by their peers and an official determination that they are so dangerous to society that they can no longer be a part of it; therefore being imprisoned.

Will a law that prevents freed criminals from carrying prevent any crime? Probably not - generally people interested in committing a crime will not consider the legal ramifications of their actions. Could such a law negatively impact law abiding citizens? Very likely, as those citizens who obey the law tend to... Obey laws. Even if they are erroneously cast under their effects.

Where the risk of undeserved loss of liberty exists, the potential sacrifice of a little safety or security every so often is a small price to pay to ensure that liberty remains intact.
 
PrimusTactical said:
So being crazy doesn't disqualify you?
Click to expand...

If someone is crazy or criminal enough that they can't be around fertilizer and gasoline, they should be confined in an institution or put to death. Otherwise, they should be allowed to walk to streets where they have all the access to fertilizer and gasoline that the rest of us have.

PrimusTactical said:
f the guy from Colorodo gets off from some technicality and doesn't go to prison or be convicted, he should be allowed to still carry weapons? Someone, anyone answer that specific question.
Click to expand...

Anyone who is not in prison should have all of the rights that the rest of us do. Especially, if he hasn't been convicted of anything. You honestly believe that people who haven't been convicted of a crime should lose their rights? Thats sick.
 
Maybe he had an air soft pistol.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
PrimusTactical said:
I know some guys seem to be absoloutely black and white with the rights thing, someone even through a shall not be infringed at me today. So if the guy from Colorodo gets off from some technicality and doesn't go to prison or be convicted, he should be allowed to still carry weapons? Someone, anyone answer that specific question.
Click to expand...

The "Shall Not Be Infringed" was me. Allow me to translate your quote:

PrimusTactical said:
So if someone is accused of a crime but not convicted of said crime, after a trial by jury of his peers, but we're pretty sure he did it, he should be allowed to exercise every single one of his constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

I'd say yes. Infringing upon someone's second amendment rights because the justice system is flawed is sticking your finger in the leaking dike. If violent people coming back into society is such a HUGE problem, why don't we at least look at the way out court system works and see if we can do better, instead of just implementing a blanket BAN on people's rights?
 
pernox said:
If you're so "bad" that your life is not worth protecting, you belong in jail. Period. Anything less is a concession that somewhere out there is a person who is so all-fired important that they get to tell you whether or not your life is worth anything. That same person also has jurisdiction to set the parameters by which they form their own, arbitrary judgement. That's a slippery slope that's not worth starting down, and is founded on the idea that one man has the right to tell another man his life is worthless. The only events that should cause such a determination should be those that negatively impact others to such a degree that they need to face a trial by their peers and an official determination that they are so dangerous to society that they can no longer be a part of it; therefore being imprisoned.

Will a law that prevents freed criminals from carrying prevent any crime? Probably not - generally people interested in committing a crime will not consider the legal ramifications of their actions. Could such a law negatively impact law abiding citizens? Very likely, as those citizens who obey the law tend to... Obey laws. Even if they are erroneously cast under their effects.

Where the risk of undeserved loss of liberty exists, the potential sacrifice of a little safety or security every so often is a small price to pay to ensure that liberty remains intact.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Defense of self is the most fundamental human right and the root of property rights.

A PDW is just another tool that is very efficient at what it is designed to do, but can be misused by anyone, just like gasoline, a car, an axe etc...

I feel bad for the family of this man.

Oh btw, had there been a tattoo on this guy's forehead reading "prohibited person" he would have still found a way to end his own life, quite easily with a firearm.

Remember, every citizen of the US is prohibited the access to cocaine, meth, etc.. but it is still available in every populated area.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
PrimusTactical said:
So he was probably carrying illegally. Is this action covered by 2a? This is why crazy people shouldn't be allowed guns. When you become crazy you lose that right. You forfeit the right when you become a nut, or mentally ill. You can't drive blind, so you shouldn't carry crazy.
Click to expand...


The issue is, who gets to decide what is crazy? I think putting pineapple on pizza is nuckinfuts and no sane person would ever do it.
 
TomH said:
That's usually refered to as the "price of liberty", and it is a good thing. Read up on it.
Click to expand...

This is the truth of it. In a free society, people can use their liberty to hurt others. There are many that do it even in places like communist China. When you are not in a cage under armed guard 24/7, you can hurt yourself and others. It is thankfully a small percentage that take it to the extreme, and commit mass murder. This risk can be mitigated by being armed yourself so you can hopefully defend yourself if it comes down to it.

Until the .gov hires 50% of the population to watch the other 50% 24 hours a day, kids will be killed, banks will be robbed and drugs will be bought and sold. As much as I despise drugs, murder and theft, I will take the small doses of it I am exposed to in exchange for liberty.
 
swampy said:
\

Hired by some anti gun activist group to do a gun crime they can use against gun sales. I wouldn't doubt they have more planned for upcoming gun anti votes.
Click to expand...



If the Islamists can convince people to blow themselves up I don't see why Feinstein couldn't convince this guy to blow his brains out. She must have threatened to have sex with him.
 
PrimusTactical said:
Lt. Henry Ward says the man had been involved in a standoff with Middletown officers in 2002.

So he was probably carrying illegally. Is this action covered by 2a? This is why crazy people shouldn't be allowed guns. When you become crazy you lose that right. You forfeit the right when you become a nut, or mentally ill. You can't drive blind, so you shouldn't carry crazy.

Ans definitely makes us all look bad, not what we needed.
Click to expand...

and you are the one who gets to make the decisions to decide who the second amendment applies to? just you? of course. you're more professional than us, right?

2ilot2p.gif


hey watchchityCPA, share your thoughts at least instead of trying to neg me when i'm just being honest. [wink]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NY cops kill man firing at mugger
2
Replies
56
Views
1K
jkelly1229
J
Texan Shoots, Kills Man Who Allegedly Stole His BBQ Pit
Replies
22
Views
527
Scuderia
Scuderia
Former Dick's Sporting Goods CEO defends stance on gun restrictions despite backlash
2
Replies
32
Views
977
Goodandtight
G
Parents of man shot, killed by Atlanta police at Buckhead restaurant demand justice
Replies
10
Views
304
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Californians Arming Up for Self-Defense as Illegals Flood into Cities
Replies
23
Views
461
mothybee
mothybee
Back
Top Bottom