Philando Castile

[Sean Renaud]

Staying in or around gun free zones isn't plausible even in Calfornia. And we're nuts about that shit. Contrary to the bullshit they tell you movie theaters aren't labeled as gun free or anything. It's simply polite.

I could move, if I had the resume. Might if I ever get it.

I'm not afraid either but your argument about if you don't like guns don't go near them simply doesn't hold.

 

[sr71plt]

My favorite constitutional right that you identify is the right to not feel intimidated. Really??

Yep, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--not to face being mowed down by crazy gun nuts when I go to school, church, a movie, or a club is more fundamental to the Constitution than is an add-on that doesn't say what you, in your selfishness, choose to interpret it to say.

You and others are just being too dumb to see that the childish need to have ready access to guns is at the base of all of this. Most everyone outside the United States understands that.

I didn't bother to read any further into your dumb post.

 

[eyerami]

Again, precisely why there was no mention of any free speech right or any of the other right concerns the Bill of Rights later specifically addressed - for anyone - in the original Constitution:

Mr. PINKNEY & Mr. GERRY, moved to insert a declaration “that the liberty of the Press should be inviolably observed.”

Mr. SHERMAN. It is unnecessary. The power of Congress does not extend to the Press.

On the question, it passed in the negative

- Friday September 14th 1787 In Convention, Madison's Notes

Hey, we gotta put something in there that guarantees a free press...

"It is unnecessary. The power of Congress does not extend to the Press."

BAM!

The power of Congress toward the free speech of citizens was so less even ever considered that it was never mentioned at all in debate - which was the entire negative-right purpose of the framers: it was unnecessary to list ALL the rights/things Congress (American law) has no power over, because the Constitution's purpose is to only list the relatively few things Congress is empowered over.

Yet, even with the 2nd ratifed 4 years later to intentionally make that natural right more clear, blockhead lemmings today still value their statist feelings more than they value the ability to comprehend, and more than they respect the law of the land over all.

Which is exactly why there are no nice things left anymore.

 

[eyerami]

You and others are just being too dumb to see that the childish need to have ready access to guns is at the base of all of this. Most everyone outside the United States understands that.

You remember how to fly, right wannabe mommy?

No?

Well, better buy some new kneepads and start working on that airfare...

 

[Sean Renaud]

Again, precisely why there was no mention of any free speech right or any of the other right concerns the Bill of Rights later specifically addressed - for anyone - in the original Constitution:



Hey, we gotta put something in there that guarantees a free press...

"It is unnecessary. The power of Congress does not extend to the Press."

BAM!

The power of Congress toward the free speech of citizens was so less even ever considered that it was never mentioned at all in debate - which was the entire negative-right purpose of the framers: it was unnecessary to list ALL the rights/things Congress (American law) has no power over, because the Constitution's purpose is to only list the relatively few things Congress is empowered over.

Yet, even with the 2nd ratifed 4 years later to intentionally make that natural right more clear, blockhead lemmings today still value their statist feelings more than they value the ability to comprehend, and more than they respect the law of the land over all.

Which is exactly why there are no nice things left anymore.

Isn't the fact that they were clearly incorrect in this assumption a good reason to ignore their thoughts on the matter?

 

[richard_daily]

Yep, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--not to face being mowed down by crazy gun nuts when I go to school, church, a movie, or a club is more fundamental to the Constitution than is an add-on that doesn't say what you, in your selfishness, choose to interpret it to say.

You and others are just being too dumb to see that the childish need to have ready access to guns is at the base of all of this. Most everyone outside the United States understands that.

I didn't bother to read any further into your dumb post.

Uhhh, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.

I am pretty sure I knew that in 2nd grade.

 

[Conager]

Yep, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--not to face being mowed down by crazy gun nuts when I go to school, church, a movie, or a club is more fundamental to the Constitution than is an add-on that doesn't say what you, in your selfishness, choose to interpret it to say.

You and others are just being too dumb to see that the childish need to have ready access to guns is at the base of all of this. Most everyone outside the United States understands that.

I didn't bother to read any further into your dumb post.

Alll of your fantasies seem to revolve around automatic weapons. You see submachine guns with endless magazines in your sleep don't you?

I bet you were a big A-Team fan.

The only thing consructively useful from your post is the idea that discrert, gentlemanly carry and by that I mean concealed is preferable for all the reasons you state. Some irrational people do have irrational fears when they see a gun that is not at all in use. fortunately the very sensible legislators in my state have made it perfectly legal for anyone who can legally possess a firearm to carry it with them and to conceal it from public view which of course solves all of your problems because if you don't see it how can it possibly intimidate you?

Let's have a conversation about your irrational fears.

Since most of what you know about guns comes from the movie you do know that brandishing a firearm is illegal everywhere right?

It comes out of the holster if and only if you have the right and responsibility to apply deadly force otherwise it remains holstered.

So let's just imagine that while you're checking out some man for bulges you noticed that one of his bulges happens to look like a gun. Or in the alternative, you live in an idiotic state that insists that if you're going to carry a gun around you either need permission from some clerk or you must carry it around on your hip cowboy style.


Let's assume that you have noticed a gun in the vicinity that you currently are in in some kind of public space. So naturally you wet your pants.

Which is reasonable, of course, because you have this tremendous fear that the gun is suddenly going to do something awful or inspire someone else to do something awful and in which vase you'd be caught the crossfire.

Does your fear of it abate when you then find out that the person with a gun is an off-duty police officer?

What about on-duty police officers are those okay with you to carry guns?

What if he has started the police academy and has gone through all of the gun training part, then is he okay with you?

How about a security guard with a gun on his hip and zero training? You know, like the guy that rob down south ran to hide behind after shoving the black woman panhandler out of the way.

How about if the security guard is a retired secret service agent?

How about diamond couriers?

What about secret agents carrying classified material?

All of the above are citizens first before they are any of those things.

Unless the people you're hanging around with have the tendency to want to take human life for no good reason I can't imagine why you would think they would suddenly pull out a gun and take your life for no good reason.

 

[Conager]

Isn't the fact that they were clearly incorrect in this assumption a good reason to ignore their thoughts on the matter?

that was not an assumption on their part. That was a directive the fact that subsequent generation choose to ignore that directive is on those generations and the consequences naturally follow

 

[Sean Renaud]

that was not an assumption on their part. That was a directive the fact that subsequent generation choose to ignore that directive is on those generations and the consequences naturally follow

No. It was an assumption, or an opinion if you would rather, and one that hindsight has proven wrong. There really are no such things as laws so basic that you don't need to write them down to have a functional country. There are at best things that currently are in no need of formal regulation for one reason or another.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I see there was no response to my asking the likelihood that Castile would have been shot dead if he hadn't been carrying a gun at all, whether or not he had a license to carry. Might be something for those insisting the second amendment gives them the right to appear threatening to others and to make them extra nervous to have an "is worth it?" contemplation about. What are the chances that Castile would have been shot to death in his car if he hadn't been carrying a gun at all?

Nearly zero.

The Hispanic cop pulled him over to verify his identity unless it is your contention that the cops pulled him over because they had decided to execute a black man just because they were racists.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Considerably lower down to about zero, don't you think?

Then continue down that line. Was Castile having a gun part of the problem--and, given the poisonous atmosphere created by those wanting to assert their rights to open carry--and thus being considered trigger-happy selfish crazies by most of the rest of us--part of the reason he's dead? It doesn't take a genius to follow that route to cause and effect reality.

It's pretty much the same as responding "what do you expect?" to those carrying a rifle into a grocery store just because the law says they can and then finding the store surrounded by trigger-happy cops when they walk out.

Sometimes asserting rights you think you have (even if the Supreme Court agrees with you by misreading the Constitution along with you and ignoring the rights of others you intimidate by carrying) is going to get you killed. Probably more often than you'd ever be in a position to be a help to yourself or anyone else because you carry a gun.

Castile asserted his right to carry a gun. He's dead. But it would be his right to have it put in his coffin with him.

Chances are quite good that the nervous cop overreacted. But chances are really, really good that because Castile carried a gun and conditions in the country are what they are, the lives of the cop and his family are totally screwed now as well--because Castile was carrying a gun.

The biggest factor in this incident, I believe, is that Castile was carrying a gun--and he wasn't out shooting a rabbit for dinner. The NRA and friends have some waking up to do about this.

This is not a well-reasoned line, as I said in the other thread if you do not think that cops do not deal with guns and arrests on a regular basis, just binge-watch COPS.

You are weaving a complex tapestry to explain why an innocent man got shot because of his race, throwing in the red herring of the second amendment because you hate guns, and the Liberal proclivity is to use every tragedy to go after the Second Amendment, but Occam teaches us that in almost any situation, the simplest answer is probably the correct one, in this instance, the victim did something that alarmed the officer forcing him to shoot, and in the video aftermath we clearly see the gun in his lap, so a rational conclusion is that he reached for it.

This will turn out to be a justified shooting.

 

[Lancecastor]

Lesson:

Do not date a woman with a name like "lavish diamond"....it can't end well.


Question:

What will Lavish do with her GoFundMe money, do you figure?

 

[Liar]

http://blog.americanflags.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Gonzales_Come_and_Take_It.png​

I solemnly swear that I will not come and take your cast iron cannon.

 

[Lancecastor]

Lavish Diamonds gofundme is at $54,000

https://www.gofundme.com/2d8ryf34

Nice little scam. Good woman!

http://m.startribune.com/300k-colle...s-in-castile-s-name-are-they-legit/386487071/

 

[miles]

It's amazing how far leftists will stretch their straw men arguments in a desperate attempt to support their crumbling narrative. They refuse to even consider the possibility the cop didn't deliberately shoot this guy.

The truth scares the hell out of them. They will defend the Big Lie no matter what the cost.

It's proof they could care less about people. Their agenda is far more important.

 

[Ishmael]

It's amazing how far leftists will stretch their straw men arguments in a desperate attempt to support their crumbling narrative. They refuse to even consider the possibility the cop didn't deliberately shoot this guy.

The truth scares the hell out of them. They will defend the Big Lie no matter what the cost.

It's proof they could care less about people. Their agenda is far more important.

Miles, the cop DID deliberately shot him. The issue is whether justified or not?

Ishmael

 

[Disgustipated]

It's amazing how far leftists will stretch their straw men arguments in a desperate attempt to support their crumbling narrative. They refuse to even consider the possibility the cop didn't deliberately shoot this guy.

The truth scares the hell out of them. They will defend the Big Lie no matter what the cost.

It's proof they could care less about people. Their agenda is far more important.

Is that like tripping over a drunk frat boy and your dick falling in a passed out sorority girl?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Is that like tripping over a drunk frat boy and your dick falling in a passed out sorority girl?

Technically, that COULD happen. Remember Pittsburgh Steeler QB Ben Rothlisberger in that college bar a couple of years ago? What an incredible set of events!

 

[Disgustipated]

Technically, that COULD happen. Remember Pittsburgh Steeler QB Ben Rothlisberger in that college bar a couple of years ago? What an incredible set of events!

In Ben's case, that's obviously different!

 

[miles]

Miles, the cop DID deliberately shot him. The issue is whether justified or not?

Ishmael

You know what I mean.

 

[Lancecastor]

Miles, the cop DID deliberately shot him. The issue is whether justified or not?

Ishmael

Of course it was justified.

Your African immigrant problem makes a few million Syrians look like a cake-walk.

Plus, most of the Syrians will find work.

 

[RobDownSouth]

See Miles twisting in the wind, all alone.....

Miles, the cop DID deliberately shot him. The issue is whether justified or not?

Ishmael

Damn, we live in strange times when even Ishmael knocks down a miles ben zonah strawman argument.

 

[richard_daily]

It's amazing how far leftists will stretch their straw men arguments in a desperate attempt to support their crumbling narrative. They refuse to even consider the possibility the cop didn't deliberately shoot this guy.

The truth scares the hell out of them. They will defend the Big Lie no matter what the cost.

It's proof they could care less about people. Their agenda is far more important.

So, you're claiming that you care about people?

Can you explain how you care about people?

 

[Lancecastor]

So, you're claiming that you care about people?

Can you explain how you care about people?

You've been watching LA Law again, haven't you?

 

[Disgustipated]

You've been watching LA Law again, haven't you?

That show still airs on primetime in Canada.