Those Damn Guns Again

[QueEx]

[QueEx]

Senators predict another vote on gun control legislation

WASHINGTON — Two top senators predicted Thursday that gun legislation will come up again for a Senate vote - possibly before the end of the year - as public attitudes shift toward stricter controls.

Their assessment comes after the defeat last week of a widely popular bipartisan background check measure that was drafted in response to the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., after a gunman opened fire killing 26 people, mostly children.

"I think we're going to bring this bill back before the end of the year and I think you may find some changes," said Sen Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief backer of the bill, at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

"Lots of senators who thought it was safe to vote against it" he said, "are not so sure anymore" because of changing attitudes.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/2...#storylink=cpy

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Greed

You call it feelings because I don't consider, the government fucks with everyone (who's not rich of course), a valid reason to fuck with this storeowner.

[b]The DA said he was trying to prove a point by sending this to the grand jury. Prove that point on a case that fits his idea of abuse of the principle of self-defense.

Do you realize that you've taken huge-ass leaps over what the prosecutor in this case is doing; what the storeowner must be feeling, etc., and there aren't enough FACTS in the article for anyone to make those kind of hard judgments ???

Seriously, there are only a couple of actual quotes in the whole story and those cast in the context that author chose. 99.9% of the article is just the opinions of the author. Do you not see that ???

How the fuck do you jump so hard to conclusions without hardly a fact to support those feelings ???

Originally Posted by Greed

Thats a hell of a reality you live in where you think the actions of government lean towards the "right ones."

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. But, why would you just presume in this case, without any factual basis, that its otherwise ???

Originally Posted by Greed

As you said, grand juries generally result in whatever outcome the government wants. So nothing about your logic protects against the abuse you cited as being made unlikely through this process.

The system isn't perfect -- and I don't know of one that is. If you do, please stop fucking with us and just name the ones that are.

Obviously, there are either aspects of my explanation that you don't get (or, perhaps, there are aspects of my explanation not well articulated). I would have been happy to explain further and in more detail, but it seems you've opted instead to just talk outta your ass and insult my and other's intelligence.

If at some point in the future you decide to re-engage in a dialogue, I'm available. But I've tired of going back and forth with your cynicism.

Originally Posted by Greed

Once again the county DA isn't even asserting that the store owner did anything wrong. He said he wants to stress that people shouldn't think having a trespasser is a license to kill. The grand jury choice is a political point independent of this particular case.

Is that a valid reason to send shit to the grand jury?

Another case in point. Where are the FACTS in this story that support what the prosecutor is really thinking ??? Hence, most of what you're doing here is guessing, supposing, etc., over the motives, thoughts, etc., of the district attorney, the store owner and some respondents in this thread.

Originally Posted by Greed

Oh, I'm sorry. What is your opinion that will not be predictable in the slightest?

I don't know where you got that cynical hair up your ass, but its not a substitute for reasoned discussion. However it got there, its becomming obvious that its affecting your vision.

Originally Posted by Greed

The criminalization of self-defense using a gun (which is the only valid use) is why I posted it and why you and Dave completely see the government as reasonable in this situation.

More dumb shit. I could explain the nuances of the defense and how prosecutors, in general, have to balance and articulate its application to a wide range of fact patterns so as not to promote misinterpretation or create misconceptions of the defense among the general populace. The result could be disastrous to both innocent people and those who misunderstand. But, obviously in your dimmed-view, I would simply be articulating the government's response, so I defer.

Originally Posted by Greed

And you're labeling those people as kooks because they don't see eye-to-eye with you.

Yes I'm labeling them, but not just because they don't see eye-to-eye with me, but because in my opinion (I think I'm entitled to hold that opinion) that they, with respect to gun control, appear to be falling for the fear and paranoia of "losing their guns" spread by those who have a huge-ass pecuniary interest in spreadiing that fear and paranoia -- so that they can manufacture and sell more guns until not only every man, woman and child has a weapon -- but until all of the known creatures in the animal kingdom become armed and dangerous, as well.

Originally Posted by Greed

This is one of many threads where those "kooks" are right not to trust that you're concerned about their welfare or safety.

Gotcha. So, we have just another of the many post in which you've made judgments without any FACTUAL basis. You're making quite a habit of that!!!

Not only that, but you've concluded by building another strawman, irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion, absent any factual basis, and too small for your weak-ass arguments to hide behind.

[Greed]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Do you realize that you've taken huge-ass leaps over what the prosecutor in this case is doing; what the storeowner must be feeling, etc., and there aren't enough FACTS in the article for anyone to make those kind of hard judgments ???

Seriously, there are only a couple of actual quotes in the whole story and those cast in the context that author chose. 99.9% of the article is just the opinions of the author. Do you not see that ???

How the fuck do you jump so hard to conclusions without hardly a fact to support those feelings ???

The only "huge-ass leap" I took was taking what a lawyer said at face-value but I did it anyway.

The DA took another case, where a trespasser was shot, to the grand jury when the trespasser was a threat to property but no physical harm was inflicted on the property owner. Or is that the author's opinion?

That fact plus the DA's statement, taken at face value, shows it's a political point and he isn't assessing things on a case-by-case basis. You find value in that. I don't. Earlier I called him a waste of space if he feels it isn't his job to make judgements on who should be referred to the grand jury.

Of course, we both know he doesn't send everything that comes into his office to the grand jury, just the cases where he can score points and keep his name in the news.

Regarding this storeowner, as long as you aren't promoting that he's an unstable psychopath, of course it would be traumatic for an average person to have his spouse threaten, himself shot at, and then had to take a life in return.

You think it's rocket science and a great leap of faith to say what he went through is enough and having his case considered by a grand jury is a unnecessary?

Originally Posted by QueEx

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. But, why would you just presume in this case, without any factual basis, that its otherwise ???

The system isn't perfect -- and I don't know of one that is. If you do, please stop fucking with us and just name the ones that are.

You're another master of the understatement with "the system isn't perfect." A perfect system doesn't and will likely never exist because people will always give the benefit of the doubt to a governmental authority rather than to the individual. That's according to your misguided belief that, regarding policy, "right ones" are being pursued.

Originally Posted by QueEx

Obviously, there are either aspects of my explanation that you don't get (or, perhaps, there are aspects of my explanation not well articulated). I would have been happy to explain further and in more detail, but it seems you've opted instead to just talk outta your ass and insult my and other's intelligence.

If at some point in the future you decide to re-engage in a dialogue, I'm available. But I've tired of going back and forth with your cynicism.

I thought I had an accurate grasp of everything you were going for. I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence. I was trying to insult your motivations for believing government knows best.

Originally Posted by QueEx

More dumb shit. I could explain the nuances of the defense and how prosecutors, in general, have to balance and articulate its application to a wide range of fact patterns so as not to promote misinterpretation or create misconceptions of the defense among the general populace. The result could be disastrous to both innocent people and those who misunderstand. But, obviously in your dimmed-view, I would simply be articulating the government's response, so I defer.

You seem to put a high value on what they are trying to do rather than the end results.

Originally Posted by QueEx

Yes I'm labeling them, but not just because they don't see eye-to-eye with me, but because in my opinion (I think I'm entitled to hold that opinion) that they, with respect to gun control, appear to be falling for the fear and paranoia of "losing their guns" spread by those who have a huge-ass pecuniary interest in spreadiing that fear and paranoia -- so that they can manufacture and sell more guns until not only every man, woman and child has a weapon -- but until all of the known creatures in the animal kingdom become armed and dangerous, as well.

Gotcha. So, we have just another of the many post in which you've made judgments without any FACTUAL basis. You're making quite a habit of that!!!

Not only that, but you've concluded by building another strawman, irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion, absent any factual basis, and too small for your weak-ass arguments to hide behind.

Over the last 5 months, we've been flooded with information and polls regarding this issue, but the best you can make sense of it is people fear "losing their guns" and that's why they disagree with you.

You definitely show alot more respect to the government than you do to any person.

[QueEx]

[thoughtone]

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

LOL

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

"Why would a media-savvy and clever man like Dick Cheney delay notifying the press and the police about an accident when

a) he knew it would eventually be covered by the press and

b) he knew he would be criticized for delaying release of the story?

A simple cost/benefit analysis suggests that he (or those advising him) must
have believed that there was more to be gained than lost by a 14 hour delay
that would eventually be made public. It is likely, therefore, that something
happened during that 14 hour period which was worth the negative costs of
the delay.

What is the most likely thing to happen during a 14 hour delay that is worth the negative publicity? One possibility is that it takes approximately that period of time for alcohol to dissipate in the body and no longer be subject to accurate testing.

- Alan Dershowitz: Dick Cheney's Delay - LMBAO @ Dick Cheney