Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close (1 Viewer)

[SlyPokerDog]

Please explain how you come to this conclusion?

giving someone the ability is super grey.
If i handed you a gun and told you to kill someone and you did so, the courts would NOT hold me responsible( as long as it was a legal gun and the individual i gave the gun to has no criminal history preventing him from possessing a gun of course).

I know of no law or court that would agree with you.
Another analogy: if i drove you to the fremont bridge told you to jump off and you did so, Am i on the hook for manslaughter?

All depends on the actual circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy

 

[Phatguysrule]

Please explain how you come to this conclusion?

giving someone the ability is super grey.
If i handed you a gun and told you to kill someone and you did so, the courts would NOT hold me responsible( as long as it was a legal gun and the individual i gave the gun to has no criminal history preventing him from possessing a gun of course).

I know of no law or court that would agree with you.
Another analogy: if i drove you to the fremont bridge told you to jump off and you did so, Am i on the hook for manslaughter?

Yes, you could be held responsible in both cases.

You would be an accomplice, in both cases.

 

[SlyPokerCat]

Please explain how you come to this conclusion?

giving someone the ability is super grey.
If i handed you a gun and told you to kill someone and you did so, the courts would NOT hold me responsible( as long as it was a legal gun and the individual i gave the gun to has no criminal history preventing him from possessing a gun of course).

I know of no law or court that would agree with you.
Another analogy: if i drove you to the fremont bridge told you to jump off and you did so, Am i on the hook for manslaughter?

Perhaps. There have been cases where the girlfriend told the boyfriend to kill himself through texts. She was charged with involuntary manslaughter.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Perhaps. There have been cases where the girlfriend told the boyfriend to kill himself through texts. She was charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Too slow, cat.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Please explain how you come to this conclusion?

giving someone the ability is super grey.
If i handed you a gun and told you to kill someone and you did so, the courts would NOT hold me responsible( as long as it was a legal gun and the individual i gave the gun to has no criminal history preventing him from possessing a gun of course).

I know of no law or court that would agree with you.
Another analogy: if i drove you to the fremont bridge told you to jump off and you did so, Am i on the hook for manslaughter?

It is illegal to encourage someone to commit a criminal act, to facilitate that person in committing a criminal act, or to help them commit a criminal act. In every state, the penal code will charge you as an accessory to manslaughter either after the fact or before the fact.

https://lawrina.com/blog/accessory-... illegal to encourage,fact or before the fact.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

All depends on the actual circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy

I am not sure i agree with that ruling.
Should i ridicule the judges?

 

[ABM]

Perhaps. There have been cases where the girlfriend told the boyfriend to kill himself through texts. She was charged with involuntary manslaughter.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

https://lawrina.com/blog/accessory-to-murders/#:~:text=It is illegal to encourage,fact or before the fact.

thanks. Didnt know.
However i disagree with this. This is manipulation of freedom of choice to me. We are all our own entities capable of making our own decisions, regardless of what has influenced us to do so.
With the links definition, it could be said thst some video game manufactures and movie producers should also then be convicted of assisted murder when the product has influenced someone to do what they see on tv or in a game.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I am not sure i agree with that ruling.
Should i ridicule the judges?

Sure. You can even go protest outside of the restaurant they're eating at.

 

[Phatguysrule]

thanks. Didnt know.
However i disagree with this. This is manipulation of freedom of choice to me. We are all our own entities capable of making our own decisions, regardless of what has influenced us to do so.
With the links definition, it could be said thst some video game manufactures and movie producers should also then be convicted of assisted murder when the product has influenced someone to do what they see on tv or in a game.

The law disagrees. No game or movie is at risk of such action, or it would have taken place long ago.

There have been many attempts to hold entertainment accountable for the actions of sick people, but the law protects them.

I understand you disagree, but you're wrong. The law has been very clear on this, with historic precedent, and that is why the Supreme Court is also very wrong.

It had already ruled specifically on abortion, there was precedent protecting the right, which all justices agreed should be respected.

The constitution and the process is not the problem.

The untruthful and extremist justices who are perverting both the Constitution and the Supreme Court are the problem.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/accessory-to-a-felony.html

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This is manipulation of freedom of choice to me. We are all our own entities capable of making our own decisions, regardless of what has influenced us to do so.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Sure. You can even go protest outside of the restaurant they're eating at.

What positive benefit would that energy expenditure realistically net? Do you think it would open the eyes of those i ridicule?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

thanks. Didnt know.
However i disagree with this. This is manipulation of freedom of choice to me. We are all our own entities capable of making our own decisions, regardless of what has influenced us to do so.
With the links definition, it could be said thst some video game manufactures and movie producers should also then be convicted of assisted murder when the product has influenced someone to do what they see on tv or in a game.

If Jim Jones had lived would he have been responsible for the mass suicides and killings of his followers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

The law disagrees. No game or movie is at risk of such action, or it would have taken place long ago.

There have been many attempts to hold entertainment accountable for the actions of sick people, but the law protects them.

I understand you disagree, but you're wrong. The law has been very clear on this, with historic precedent, and that is why the Supreme Court is also very wrong.

It had already ruled specifically on abortion, there was precedent protecting the right, which all justices agreed should be respected.

The constitution and the process is not the problem.

The untruthful and extremist justices who are perverting both the Constitution and the Supreme Court are the problem.

The law(the courts) just made roe vs wade a state right.
For you to disagree with that would make you wrong? Would it not?

The law isn't always correct or the best answer as evidenced by current times.

Seems like the law is right and everyone else is wrong when you agree with the law, but the law is wrong if you disagree. How is that not the same for others?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

What positive benefit would that energy expenditure realistically net? Do you think it would open the eyes of those i ridicule?

Vs complaining about them on an internet forum they will never visit?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Vs complaining about them on an internet forum they will never visit?

Exactly my point!!!!!

Just read all the posts and threads complaining. Im tossing out other more productive options to complaining is all.

 

[crandc]

Many women use a cell phone app to track menstrual cycles. There are proposals in state legislatures to get court orders for a woman's cell phone to see if cycle data shows she was briefly pregnant. Or to track Google searches for abortion. Or map data for directions to out of state clinic.
This is certainly covered by unreasonable search and seizure.
In some countries where abortion is outlawed women suspected of miscarriage or abortion are subject to forced gynecological exams. With cops present.

 

[crandc]

If Jim Jones had lived would he have been responsible for the mass suicides and killings of his followers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

Charles Manson was held responsible for killing his followers committed. For that matter so was Hitler.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Charles Manson was held responsible for killing his followers committed. For that matter so was Hitler.

As they should be.

And great examples!

 

[Phatguysrule]

The law(the courts) just made roe vs wade a state right.
For you to disagree with that would make you wrong? Would it not?

The law isn't always correct or the best answer as evidenced by current times.

Seems like the law is right and everyone else is wrong when you agree with the law, but the law is wrong if you disagree. How is that not the same for others?

That's the point. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be political, but it just made itself political by ruling against its own precedent. These extremist members have perverted the Supreme Court, and they need to be removed, and IMO, punished. But politics will likely protect them because Democrats are too disorganized and apathetic to do anything about it.

What they have done is unamerican, regardless of if I agree or disagree with them.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

That's the point. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be political, but it just made itself political by ruling against its own precedent. These extremist members have perverted the Supreme Court, and they need to be removed, and IMO, punished.

What they have done is unamerican, regardless of if I agree or disagree with them.

Exactly. And my point is they can continue to do so im any form or fashion. So for now, until a better solution is implemented , wouldnt it be better to give the states the right vs having 7 people decide for all?

To me, this example solidifies my point.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Exactly. And my point is they can continue to do so im any form or fashion. So for now, until a better solution is implemented , wouldnt it be better to give the states the right vs having 7 people decide for all?

To me, this example solidifies my point.

No, absolutely not. It would be better to give people the right than any government. Why would giving 50 different governments the right be better? How could that possibly be better?

The default should ALWAYS be individual rights over any government.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

No, absolutely not. It would be better to give people the right than any government. Why would giving 50 different governments the right be better? How could that possibly be better?

The default should ALWAYS be individual rights over any government.

How do the people have the right when seven people can decide for all and the people get no say in who those 7 people are?
How is it 7 judges making decisions maintaining individual rights, if they rule against them?

 

[Phatguysrule]

How do the people have the right when seven people can decide for all and the people get no say in who those 7 people are?
How is it 7 judges making decisions maintaining individual rights, if they rule against them?

Yes, we have a mechanism to prevent this and respond to this, but our politicians are failing us. It's why I've had a problem with Democrats for a long time.

I have also proposed that these extremist justices be impeached, and congress make a law that a new judge is added every 24 months. Every president should be allowed to seat at least 2 supreme court justices per term.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Yes, we have a mechanism to prevent this and respond to this, but our politicians are failing us. It's why I've had a problem with Democrats for a long time.

I have also proposed that these extremist justices be impeached, and congress make a law that a new judge is added every 24 months. Every president should be allowed to seat at least 2 supreme court justices per term.

I fully agree with everything you just said. Its why i prefer legislation over ridicule.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I fully agree with everything you just said. Its why i prefer legislation over ridicule.

I think they deserve ridicule, at the very least. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[crandc]

Manufacturer of AR 15 is promoting a kids' version. Called JR 15, it is lighter so a child can hold it, and smaller to fit into a child's hands.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Manufacturer of AR 15 is promoting a kids' version. Called JR 15, it is lighter so a child can hold it, and smaller to fit into a child's hands.

Yes, tobacco companies can't market to kids but gun manufacturers can. It's BS.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yes, tobacco companies can't market to kids but gun manufacturers can. It's BS.

If you're going to teach a kid to shoot, and about gun safety, an AR15 is a great option (very small round, so very slight recoil). Making it fit them comfortably is far safer than trying to train them on a rifle that is far too big.

My kids got by on the .22, but it was pretty big for them, and uncomfortable. If we did more shooting I probably would have purchased a kid sized gun, but we got busy with basketball and didn't get out plinking as often, so it just didn't make sense.

I disagree with the marketing around the JR15, and the gun nut vibe in general.

But there have been kids trained responsibly on kid sized guns for probably 100 years.

 

[SlyPokerCat]

If you're going to teach a kid to shoot, and about gun safety, an AR15 is a great option (very small round, so very slight recoil). Making it fit them comfortably is far safer than trying to train them on a rifle that is far too big.

My kids got by on the .22, but it was pretty big for them, and uncomfortable. If we did more shooting I probably would have purchased a kid sized gun, but we got busy with basketball and didn't get out plinking as often, so it just didn't make sense.

I disagree with the marketing around the JR15, and the gun nut vibe in general.

But there have been kids trained responsibly on kid sized guns for probably 100 years.

A .22 was the best when I was a kid. Daisy bb guns. A .410 shotgun. All were fun to shoot as a kid. My first rifle was a 30 06. It was lighter weight and a little shorter barrel. Put one of those rubber cushions on the butt and was able to shoot it just fine as a scrawny kid no problem.

The ar15, m16s etc. Scared me because of how powerful they look.