guyser Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Really....when did a corporation get charged with murder? In MIchigan, 2008, a prison corporation was charged with murder. Ok, im laughing too, who'da thunk it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 You have lost me. Y9u said corporations get away with murder...what is that supposed to mean? You seem very bright at times, and in other times ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 You seem very bright at times, and in other times ....... Maybe..but I strive not to be obtuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Maybe..but I strive not to be obtuse. You don't strive to be obtuse .. it's just an unfortunate side effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 In MIchigan, 2008, a prison corporation was charged with murder. Ok, im laughing too, who'da thunk it? What became of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 You don't strive to be obtuse .. it's just an unfortunate side effect. Reading is hard for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Reading is hard for you? No it's hard for you because you can trace things back a few posts and pick up the conversation. Since you feel you are missing something, it might be best to reread the thread and figure out where you got lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 No it's hard for you because you can trace things back a few posts and pick up the conversation. Since you feel you are missing something, it might be best to reread the thread and figure out where you got lost. I'm pretty sure I am not to blame by your inability to frame a cogent argument. If you would like a chance to reframe your statement, please go at it. Other wise feel free to banter incoherently with Topaz or your toaster oven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 The dancer may have attention deficit disorder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 What became of it? It appears not to have gone before the courts. The charge stems from 2001, but charges seem to have occurred in 2008. Motions were done in Sept 2010, so presumably it is ongoing or about to begin. Sorry, should have posted a link.... http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2008/10/geowackenhut-charged-in-prison-murder.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 It appears not to have gone before the courts. The charge stems from 2001, but charges seem to have occurred in 2008. Motions were done in Sept 2010, so presumably it is ongoing or about to begin. Sorry, should have posted a link.... http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2008/10/geowackenhut-charged-in-prison-murder.html Well...at least yopu were able to provide such an unimpeachable source... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Yes arms must be available in order to have a militia but not even the US requires its citizens to provide their own. Linking the right to carry to the ability to form a militia is pure bullshit. How does a militia form without the right to carry? Remember the US Constitution is primarily designed to restrain government not it's citizens and it included not infringing upon the right for citizens to bear arms in case the government became oppressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Well...at least yopu were able to provide such an unimpeachable source... Fair enough, i grabbed the first one I saw, but newspapers did report.Valid newspapers that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 The right to bear arms has no bearing on militias. In England which has never had that right, and where militias in our context arose, the qualifictaion to be in a militia was the ability to bear arms...arms were supplied. I was in the Black Watch which was designated as an mechanized infantry unit. You could hardly expect that citizen's would be obliged to use their own Carl Gustav's and own a Grizzly AFV... I'm sure there are one or two that aren't whackjobs...but in a modern context most are. Remember that the KKK started as a militia. If a militia's purpose is to protect the community, but is not under the auspices of that community, then in my books they are merely an armed band. The weathermen were terrorists. But they don't deserve the adjective "whack-job" or the noun "militia"? The whack job militias are not "terrorists". I suppose the difference is that left wing militias.."gun groups" are basically anti-establishment and terrorize the government while right wing whack job gun-groups are more a danger to individuals with whom they disagree or discriminate against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 How does a militia form without the right to carry? Usually a charter...from the Queen The US has a very unique experiance. Militias were formed under the various governors and magistrates, not to fight the legal governement, but the indians and french. Later militias were formed under the authority of the continental congress...and after that it would seem, that the Americans trusted each other about as much as they trusted foreigners. The Black Watch was formed at the request of the Government (1862)and the leading Scottish Montrealers ponied up the cash and recruited citizens to train and drill on a part time basis. 6 companies were raised this way and stood guard at the Canada US border. And of course, they were supplied rifles (or muskets, as it were) ....tangent....Montreal used to be a very scottish city... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 I suppose the difference is that left wing militias.."gun groups" are basically anti-establishment and terrorize the government while right wing whack job gun-groups are more a danger to individuals with whom they disagree or discriminate against. I don't know if it is as easily defined as that. A militia could be in the eyes of the Freemen, an insurgency...or if we consider the IRA, terrorists... Myself I feel that since the vast majority of citizen soldiery operate under the auspices of legitimate authority in obediance to the law, that those who feel they can form ad hoc groups as a threat to legitimate government, are whack jobs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 I don't know if it is as easily defined as that. A militia could be in the eyes of the Freemen, an insurgency...or if we consider the IRA, terrorists... Myself I feel that since the vast majority of citizen soldiery operate under the auspices of legitimate authority in obediance to the law, that those who feel they can form ad hoc groups as a threat to legitimate government, are whack jobs... The funny thing is a lot of the same people that claim the right to bear arms exists as a firewall against government tyranny are also the ones gleafully cheer for large military expenditures by the government itself. "Lets buy the government security force thousands of nukes, ships, tanks, fighters, bombers etc." "OH and... Were gonna need handguns to make sure that government doesnt get out of line!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 How does a militia form without the right to carry? Remember the US Constitution is primarily designed to restrain government not it's citizens and it included not infringing upon the right for citizens to bear arms in case the government became oppressive. Like every other militia in countries that don't have the right to carry, the government supplies the weapons. If the right to carry was necessary to form a militia, it would be mandatory for all. It's not. Maybe it's time the US grew up. If it's so afraid of its own government that it's citizens need to be armed to the teath, it hasn't come very far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 ....Maybe it's time the US grew up. If it's so afraid of its own government that it's citizens need to be armed to the teath, it hasn't come very far. Actually...it was way ahead of its time when the words were written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Actually...it was way ahead of its time when the words were written. It certainly was but in some ways it hasn't progressed. It's ironic that it fought a war to be rid of domination by a foreign government only to be paranoid about the system it chose for itself. After 230 years you would think it could have got passed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 ..... After 230 years you would think it could have got passed that. I don't think you appreciate the historical and political significance of the 2nd Amendment, including its lineage to the English Bill of Rights. There is nothing to get past, if you mean accepting the general concept of a disarmed citizenry. Such a notion is completely inconsistent with the exigencies of the day....and today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 I don't think you appreciate the historical and political significance of the 2nd Amendment, including its lineage to the English Bill of Rights. There is nothing to get past, if you mean accepting the general concept of a disarmed citizenry. Such a notion is completely inconsistent with the exigencies of the day....and today. A disarmed citizenry doesn't mean not walking around with a pistol on your hip. Don't blame it on the Brits, most of their cops don't carry firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 I don't think you appreciate the historical and political significance of the 2nd Amendment, including its lineage to the English Bill of Rights. There is nothing to get past, if you mean accepting the general concept of a disarmed citizenry. Such a notion is completely inconsistent with the exigencies of the day....and today. It is certainly an interesting subject with its ironies and telling examples. Consider say, 1811....most of the adult males citizens would not have been able to vote....yet had the right to bear arms! And the government stood! Even more interesting...1960 Washington DC....residents not allowed to vote for the president...yet allowed to openly bear arms...and the government stood! America...if it didn't exist, a political scientist would have created it in a lab.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 A disarmed citizenry doesn't mean not walking around with a pistol on your hip. Don't blame it on the Brits, most of their cops don't carry firearms. I'm not blaming it on the Brits, save for not codifying the concept as a constitutional right (among other things). The Americans fixed that straight away. Most law abiding citizens do not walk around with a firearm, concealed or otherwise, but they have the right to do so according to respective state law. The US Supreme Court has also so ruled as recently as 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 It is certainly an interesting subject with its ironies and telling examples. Consider say, 1811....most of the adult males citizens would not have been able to vote....yet had the right to bear arms! And the government stood! Even more interesting...1960 Washington DC....residents not allowed to vote for the president...yet allowed to openly bear arms...and the government stood! America...if it didn't exist, a political scientist would have created it in a lab.... I can remember being in Washington state with my son on his 19th birthday thinking that if we lived there I could legally buy him a handgun but here is no way I could legally take take him into a bar and buy him a beer. That's bizarre. It is one for the shrinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.