[News] The Trayvon Martin Discussion Thread

GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
fade said:
It'll take more than an anecdote by Adam Smith that essentially rephrases the popular church concept of sola gratia to convince me. The government should (theoretically) answer to the voters and be transparent, which is a luxury we're not afforded by corporations. Idiosyncratically, corporations ARE governments. We pay private taxes to them, and we have even less control over how they control our lives. You could argue the free market concept, but I think we've all seen quite enough capitulation to corporate whims by consumers with no real recourse or power to know how much influence your dollar has on corporate decision making. There's this magical concept that somehow my dollar counts, but really, how much choice or effect do you truly have? About the same as you have with your vote, except everyone gets to see where the results of that vote go.
Click to expand...
The adam smith quote was not related to the corporation bit, it was to show that we don't have rosy glasses, we just think it works out better for everyone in general if we're not socialist.

As for the corporation thing, the difference is, Gold's Gym is a corporation that believes I owe it $600 for a membership I cancelled. I have refused to pay them. The worst they can do is sue me over it, and lose, wasting my time. If the government decides I owe them $600, and I refuse to pay it, they can imprison me. If I refuse to be imprisoned, they can kill me. There is no recourse. There are even things the government can do you aren't allowed to contest in a court of law.


Necronic said:
The problem with the second ammendment is that it simply can't be followed. The purpose of it was to have a populace that could passively (w/ out government permissions) arm itself well enough to defend itself against the government if the time arose.

In the time of the founders this made sense, as men with muskets could potentially defend themselves against other men with muskets. But as time went on and military technology progressed the potential weapons a person could be allowed to posses did not, and could not, keep up. I don't think that even the NRA would want to see civilians with access to Stingers, Harlequins, or C4, not to mention Tanks, Jet fighters, or, going even further, chemical or biological weapons, or, going the furthest, nuclear weapons (which are a necessary deterrent for any group seriously considering major territorial warfar against the US.)

The population will never be able to be allowed to arm itself to the extent that is reasonable for military self-defence. This is not an arguable point. This, in fact, proves that the 2nd ammendment was written in a context that simply does not exactly mesh with the current state of military equipment.

So, with that we can understand that the 2nd ammendment is fatally anachronistic in structure, and simply needs to be reworked, but the intent should still be understood and maintained.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're looking at it clearly. There were bombs and rockets and cannons and warships and such used in warfare well before the late 18th century. The mention of militia indicates infantry. It's reasonable then to expect that the 2nd amendment allows for the militia (the entire population of the united states) to equip itself to army regular standards - that is, the standard kit for your given army footsoldier. The crap about tanks and nukes is a red herring. The 2nd amendment clearly is about bearing arms. As in, carrying them. Can you carry a tank or a nuke any better than you could carry a cannon or a frigate? Would a soldier be expected to?

As for the citizenry never being armed enough to give any fight to our government, it sure seems we had a hell of a time against basic infantry in the middle east this last decade. Our tanks, jets, missiles, drones etc were not enough. In the end it still took grunts with assault rifles going door to door. And after all of it, our level of success is arguable.
 
Krisken

Krisken

You like that he glosses over the differences in what it would take for an armed revolution on home soil vs. counter terrorism half a world away?

Sent from my confused and tired brain using telekinesis.
 
checkeredhat

checkeredhat

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw-us-shooting-case-theyve-lost-210940687.html
The Trayvon Martin case took a bizarre turn Tuesday when George Zimmerman's attorneys quit, complaining that they have lost all contact with him and that he called the prosecutor and talked to a TV host after they told him not to speak to anyone.
Click to expand...
The article goes on to say that the lawyers are still convinced he's innocent and would represent him again if they were contacted, but just... a weird, to say the least.
 
jwhouk

jwhouk

Regardless of the opinions, the shooter has gone missing - to the point where his lawyers have officially said "we're not repping him anymore."

That doesn't sound kosher to me.
 
S

Soliloquy

jwhouk said:
Regardless of the opinions, the shooter has gone missing - to the point where his lawyers have officially said "we're not repping him anymore."

That doesn't sound kosher to me.
Click to expand...

One thing that worries me about the "gone missing" thing -- The Black Panthers put out a bounty on Zimmerman's head. I think the best case scenario is that he fled to avoid that. Worst case? He didn't avoid it.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Krisken said:
Yes, clearly. Nothing to do with that shit not existing back then.
Click to expand...
There were equivalencies of which I gave examples. You're just being intentionally obtuse. The 2nd amendment is cut and dry. You can bear a musket, you can bear an AK-47, you can bear a grenade or a launcher.. you can't physically "bear" a howitzer or an abrams or a nuke, any more than you could "bear" a revolutionary war cannon or frigate.
 
Adam

Adam

jwhouk said:
Regardless of the opinions, the shooter has gone missing - to the point where his lawyers have officially said "we're not repping him anymore."

That doesn't sound kosher to me.
Click to expand...
It doesn't sound kosher for good representation, that's for sure. You don't talk to your client for 48 hours, so you call a press conference to announce you are no longer representing him but still believe he's innocent? In what world does that represent anything near professionalism?
 
M

makare

Maybe they didn't want people to keep bothering them now that they aren't representing him anymore.
 
M

makare

" that they could no longer claim to act as his legal representatives, since he had failed to take their phone calls or respond to emails since Sunday and had taken several recent actions without their advice."

It's not just that they haven't heard from him he is off doing things against their advice and isn't responding to their attempts to contact him. They are trying to protect themselves. I don't blame them.
 
jwhouk

jwhouk

Either that or they are going to prosecute - and he will have conveniently found a way to get to someplace like, say, Aruba.
 
S

Soliloquy

jwhouk said:
Either that or they are going to prosecute - and he will have conveniently found a way to get to someplace like, say, Aruba.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, I don't see why they'd wait 72 hours to announce the information, especially since the lack of action is causing so much tension in the area.
 
S

Soliloquy

Adammon said:
Release bad news on a Friday, good news on a Monday. Media tactic.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd say that "News that will potentially cause riots" is bad news and "News that will calm down the growing angry mob" is holy-crap-release-this-right-now-I-don't-care-about-our-regular-tactics news.
 
Adam

Adam

Soliloquy said:
Well, I'd say that "News that will potentially cause riots" is bad news and "News that will calm down the growing angry mob" is holy-crap-release-this-right-now-I-don't-care-about-our-regular-tactics news.
Click to expand...
Releasing that they're not going to prosecute Zimmerman is news that will potentially cause riots, hence Friday.
 
S

Soliloquy

Hmm... should I get my head out of my ass and realize that we're both agreeing, or should I continue arguing for no reason whatsoever.

Decisions, decisions...
 
@

@li3n...

quote="GasBandit, post: 930205, member: 167"]
As for the corporation thing, the difference is, Gold's Gym is a corporation that believes I owe it $600 for a membership I cancelled. I have refused to pay them. The worst they can do is sue me over it, and lose, wasting my time. If the government decides I owe them $600, and I refuse to pay it, they can imprison me. If I refuse to be imprisoned, they can kill me. There is no recourse. There are even things the government can do you aren't allowed to contest in a court of law.
[/quote]

Oh Gas, i love how you think those companies wouldn't love to be able to send armed gunmen after you... just ask Edison about the whole Hollywood using his camera without a license thing.
 
S

Soliloquy

I don't know why you think he doesn't believe they would if they could. What he's saying is that they can't -- not without huge legal ramifications, anyway.

The government, however? It doesn't have the same concerns.
 
S

Soliloquy

Guess who was dead wrong about the announcement? That'd be me.

So... Zimmerman's being charged, and he's currently nowhere to be found. Fun stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top