With gun violence down, is America arming against an imagined threat?

[Uncensored2008]

The basis of Miranda

You have a right ot remain silent (Learned that one from my Dragnet days)

Direct reference to fifth amendment rights

You learn poorly - no wonder you're a leftist.

Miranda has nothing to do with a right to silence. As even you were able to grasp, that is guaranteed in the 5th. So what would Miranda have to do with it?

So, what is the purpose of Miranda? Simply, it is a gift to defense attorneys that allow evidence to be suppressed if LEO don't EXPLAIN to criminals the rights they have. Miranda does not, and cannot confer civil rights.

{In 2000, a case that hinged on the constitutionality of the 1968 law came before the Supreme Court. The case began when federal law enforcement officials followed a man suspected of driving the getaway car in a bank robbery in Virginia to his home in Takoma Park, Maryland. He refused to let them search his apartment, but while they were there, they noticed a large wad of money on his bed. Though he wouldn't allow a search, he did agree to accompany police to headquarters, where they questioned him and told him they had gotten a warrant to search his home. He confessed. Later, he claimed that he was not read his Miranda rights in a timely manner.

His lawyers presented this argument to the U.S. District Court, which agreed with him. As a result, the District Court threw out his confession and the evidence found in his apartment. When the case was appealed, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cited the 1968 crime bill, saying that "technical violations" of Miranda should no longer result in the inadmissibility of evidence.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which was faced with whether to let the decision made by the Fourth Circuit stand, thus overturning the precedent that requires law enforcement officials to read suspects the Miranda warnings.}

Should Miranda Be Overturned in Dickerson ... | www.streetlaw.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does anyone know why they bother tring to discuss anyting with RW?
He unquestionably serves to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not really, we would just like to prevent people from killing themselves if we can

ROFL

The lies you tell.

You'd like to disarm the peasantry - you don't give a fuck about people killing themselves. Most of the left salivates at the prospect of slaughtering about 3/4's of their fellow human beings.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does anyone know why they bother tring to discuss anyting with RW?
He unquestionably serves to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

RW actually believes himself to be funny and clever.

Talk about a lack of self-awareness.

 

[rightwinger]

The basis of Miranda

You have a right ot remain silent (Learned that one from my Dragnet days)

Direct reference to fifth amendment rights

You learn poorly - no wonder you're a leftist.

Miranda has nothing to do with a right to silence. As even you were able to grasp, that is guaranteed in the 5th. So what would Miranda have to do with it?

So, what is the purpose of Miranda? Simply, it is a gift to defense attorneys that allow evidence to be suppressed if LEO don't EXPLAIN to criminals the rights they have. Miranda does not, and cannot confer civil rights.

{In 2000, a case that hinged on the constitutionality of the 1968 law came before the Supreme Court. The case began when federal law enforcement officials followed a man suspected of driving the getaway car in a bank robbery in Virginia to his home in Takoma Park, Maryland. He refused to let them search his apartment, but while they were there, they noticed a large wad of money on his bed. Though he wouldn't allow a search, he did agree to accompany police to headquarters, where they questioned him and told him they had gotten a warrant to search his home. He confessed. Later, he claimed that he was not read his Miranda rights in a timely manner.

His lawyers presented this argument to the U.S. District Court, which agreed with him. As a result, the District Court threw out his confession and the evidence found in his apartment. When the case was appealed, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cited the 1968 crime bill, saying that "technical violations" of Miranda should no longer result in the inadmissibility of evidence.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which was faced with whether to let the decision made by the Fourth Circuit stand, thus overturning the precedent that requires law enforcement officials to read suspects the Miranda warnings.}

Should Miranda Be Overturned in Dickerson ... | www.streetlaw.org

You can't fix stupid

Miranda was a direct requirement for law enforcement to inform suspects of their fifth amendment rights against self incrimination

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can't fix stupid

No one is trying to fix you.

I just humiliate you so that your demagoguery is negated.

Miranda was a direct requirement for law enforcement to inform suspects of their fifth amendment rights against self incrimination

So, Miranda was a law created by the courts to INFORM, and conferred no rights at all?

Thank you for admitting your ignorance.

Oh, and since you're stupid as a fencepost, I will again point out the Miranda is no longer required per Dickerson v. the United States; as I cited.

 

[The Rabbi]

Miranda rights are covered in the Fifth Amendment. You can find it if you read past the second amendment

I dont see the word Miranda anywhere there. I do see the word "arms" in the 2A.
Looks like another fail-o by the chief nutjob of USMB.

WTF?

Sorry, too ridiculous to even respond to. Learn the relationship between case law and the Constitution and we can discuss

Not surprising the point is over your head.
Miranda is not in the Constitution. The procedure came about because of a court case. That's it. The exclusionary rule even less so.
These are rigths given to criminals that supercede rights of law abiding citizens. The point is proven. Next point.

 

[rightwinger]

I dont see the word Miranda anywhere there. I do see the word "arms" in the 2A.
Looks like another fail-o by the chief nutjob of USMB.

WTF?

Sorry, too ridiculous to even respond to. Learn the relationship between case law and the Constitution and we can discuss

Not surprising the point is over your head.
Miranda is not in the Constitution. The procedure came about because of a court case. That's it. The exclusionary rule even less so.
These are rigths given to criminals that supercede rights of law abiding citizens. The point is proven. Next point.

The same rights apply to all citizens

Miranda applied a constitutional right

 

[The Rabbi]

WTF?

Sorry, too ridiculous to even respond to. Learn the relationship between case law and the Constitution and we can discuss

Not surprising the point is over your head.
Miranda is not in the Constitution. The procedure came about because of a court case. That's it. The exclusionary rule even less so.
These are rigths given to criminals that supercede rights of law abiding citizens. The point is proven. Next point.

The same rights apply to all citizens

Miranda applied a constitutional right

Are you really so stupid as to not grasp the point here? Or are you being disingenuous?

 

[HomeInspect]

On the lighter side :

In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

SOLUTION: It should simply be illegal for Democrats to own guns. Best idea I’ve seen.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares about gun control right now except the k00ks.


LOL.....the rest of America is arming themselves to the teeth!!! SHit.....even in places like Massacheusetts!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

More bad news for the mental cases...........


Reports show gun homicides down steeply since 1993 peak, further fueling Congress' gun debate | StarTribune.com

 

[FA_Q2]

...

So, nothing Sigon? Another gun thread where the gun control advocates simply leave when the debate starts to get tough?

 

[Saigon]

...

So, nothing Sigon? Another gun thread where the gun control advocates simply leave when the debate starts to get tough?

Um....what is it you want a response to?

I lost interest in this thread when it seemed to just degenerate into spam and gibberish, so may have missed a question, but posting "So nothing, Saigon" doesn't give me a lot to work with.

 

[FA_Q2]

...

So, nothing Sigon? Another gun thread where the gun control advocates simply leave when the debate starts to get tough?

Um....what is it you want a response to?

I lost interest in this thread when it seemed to just degenerate into spam and gibberish, so may have missed a question, but posting "So nothing, Saigon" doesn't give me a lot to work with.

The post was lengthy so I did not want to transfer the whole thing. Click the arrow in the quote; it brings you to the original post. That’s why I quoted it

 

[rightwinger]

On the lighter side :

In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

SOLUTION: It should simply be illegal for Democrats to own guns. Best idea I’ve seen.

Good points

Highlights the need for stricter gun controls

 

[The Rabbi]

...

So, nothing Sigon? Another gun thread where the gun control advocates simply leave when the debate starts to get tough?

Um....what is it you want a response to?

I lost interest in this thread when it seemed to just degenerate into spam and gibberish, so may have missed a question, but posting "So nothing, Saigon" doesn't give me a lot to work with.

Lost interest=lost face.
That's what happens when you post uninformed crap. You want the U.S. to be like other countries but are selective as to what those countries are. Hint: we are not Canada or Australia. You also play fast and loose with definitions. Hint: inner city American blacks are not immigrants.
Your debating skills suck. Your knowledge base is poor. And your opinions are illogical and easily disproved.

 

[The Rabbi]

On the lighter side :

In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

SOLUTION: It should simply be illegal for Democrats to own guns. Best idea I’ve seen.

Good points

Highlights the need for stricter gun controls

No, you don't get it. We had stricter gun control. Between 1863 and the present gun control has increased tremendously. But so has gun violence (OK, gun violence is down dramatically over the lst 20 years but who's counting). Gun control leads to gun violence. We need less gun control.

 

[jon_berzerk]

On the lighter side :

In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

SOLUTION: It should simply be illegal for Democrats to own guns. Best idea I’ve seen.

Good points

Highlights the need for stricter gun controls

No, you don't get it. We had stricter gun control. Between 1863 and the present gun control has increased tremendously. But so has gun violence (OK, gun violence is down dramatically over the lst 20 years but who's counting). Gun control leads to gun violence. We need less gun control.

it is about control not safety

the first gun control laws imposed

was on the free slaves

it was also illegal for free slaves to have dogs

as it was thought that they may be used as weapons as well

 

[skookerasbil]

A far left male owning a gun is some scary shit.

Remember the famous line from A Christmas Story"?/????


"You'll shoot your eye out kid!!!"



It'd be a hoot to take some of these limpwristers to a shooting range. You'd need a padded room on wheels to transport them when the session was over.