Gun sales up since the electionFollow

it is years of republican fear mongering at work.

republicans think the dems want to take their guns away. they think that because 610 am radio and fox news constantly pumps fear into their sheepish heads.

no democratic president, congress, or legislature has ever tried to eliminate the ownership of guns. controll who gets them? you bet. they dont want felons having them and they want to be able to track down the owner if one is used in a crime.

they also dont see any point to selling an ak47 to a 19 year old gang member or anyone else for that matter either.

but let the sily repubs blow their cash on a box of fear. they will have less money to donate to the next election that way. its a win win.

I just remembered that my dad has one of these. He used to hunt deer with it. It's semi-automatic, and I don't think he has (or at least, he doesn't use) the clip. The chamber holds a few rounds.

My dad's gun is a Chinese Type 56 "Chi-Com." Complete with bayonet.

Yes, we need guns to protect us from the po-po.

I drove through there once on accident. I won't be making that mistake again.

Not what I said.

In America today, the best ways to protect our rights include peaceful protests and other forms of public expression, civil rights lawsuits, and voting for people who value civil rights. Shooting at police officers wouldn't be anywhere close on this list.

What I implied was that cops in America have not historically been guardians of our civil rights, they have been the people violating them.

Strawman after strawman?

I didn't say all cops. I didn't say most cops. I didn't say many cops. Nonetheless, civil rights are things we hold that protect us from the government, especially cops.

Famous cases like Miranda came about because historically, physical abuse was a very common method the police used to obtain confessions.

But go ahead, keep distorting my point and then arguing with the distortion.

It's the flame warrior's word of the year. Don'cha know?

I for one appreciate the infinite vigor with which my local cops defend and protect coffee and donut distributing establishments.

Again, my point has nothing to do with accusing cops of being evil. Power corrupts. The point of enumerated constitutional civil rights is to protect the people from their government.

If I followed your line of thought, we could just do away with the constitution because we can trust the government to take care of us.

No need for the police to have probable cause to invade your home ... they wouldn't do that.

No need to separate Church and State, the government would never favor one religion over another.

No need to require the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you're arrested and indicted you must be guilty. The police would never arrest an innocent person.

If this continues, I might have to quote the Supreme Court in opinion after opinion. My posts would turn into Gbajiesque posts.

I suppose I could quote the leading text on criminal procedure, Understanding Criminal Procedure, by Professor Joshua Dressler of McGeorge Law School in Sacramento.

Your choice, but don't say I didn't warn you :-)


EDIT: Correction, Joshuah Dressler is now at Ohio State University College of Law. He was at McGeorge when I met him as a student.

Edited, Nov 13th 2008 5:01pm by Ahkuraj

You completely lost me.

1. I never limited my comments to federal government. I said government. Our Supreme Court has held that the protections of the constitution also limit state governments, through the 14th Amendment. In fact, in our history, violation of civil rights has occurred more often at the hands of State and local governments. This is why Congress enacted Title 42, Section 1983, of the U.S. Code. It provides for civil rights lawsuits, for damages, against local government agencies and other entities acting under color of law. By the way, this law was also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux Klan by providing a civil remedy for abuses then being committed in the South. At the time, the KKK was pervasive in many places in the South and was able to either use the organs of government or at least get them to look the other way while it carried out its acts of terror on southern blacks.

2. I wasn't positing a tyrannical government. I was positing normal human beings trying to carry out their duties to the best of their ability and succumbing to the normal slide into shortcuts which too often lead to abuses.

3. It's not only Republicans supporting gun ownership.

4. I don't get your point on States rights. But the Supreme Court did limit Section 1983 lawsuits, finding that State sovereign immunity completely protects State agencies from lawsuits under this law unless the State waives its sovereign immunity.

EDIT: Added last sentence and corrected a typo.




Edited, Nov 13th 2008 4:43pm by Ahkuraj

Edited, Nov 13th 2008 4:47pm by Ahkuraj

I'm retracting my original statement since my info was mostly invalid.

Edited, Nov 13th 2008 5:25pm by Debalic

No do overs!