Re: Aaron Hernandez

by guppy Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:57 pm

George1963 wrote:Geez. If somebody said I didn't know what I was talking about I'd make an effort to find out what I was missing. You still don't know what the second amendment is about. Not surprising. There's a lot of people in this country who like it that way. Do a little research. It'll be as easy as googling second amendment framers intent. He'll, just look at Wikipedia, I'm sure they'll have examples of what the people who put the thing in there wrote that they meant it for. Not what I say or what the NRA says or what Rush Limbaugh says and certainly not wha "constitutional scholar" Barak Obama says but what the guys who wrote the friggin' thon wrote that they meant it for. Then maybe you'll know that what some people are trying to do to it, and the first, fourth and tenth amendments as well, is exactly what the framers were trying to prevent by including it.
Don't feel bad about not knowing what one amendment means though. Not knowing what the whole thing means is something to feel bad about.
Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government can't mandate background checks?
Besides the second amendment, pretty much the whole idea of it says they can't. If it doesn't say they can, they can't. Tenth amendment backs that up.
Btw, in case you're interested, their clever work around on that is the very weak idea that the commerce clause gives them the right, which opens up a whole other discussion and would have had the founders howling.

My whole constitutional argument and playful use of "rights" vs. "privileges" was more of a game, designed, specifically, to get under your skin and get your panties in a bunch. I was toying around. It worked. Once again, you fall back on your trademark insults and telling the other person he don't know what he's talking about. Weak. You talk about what the Founding Fathers "wrote", but don't provide a single example. You say if the constitution does not grant a right (of Congress to pass a background check law), then they can't do it. For me to even respond to that absurd argument would be to dignify it beyond what it deserves. Of course laws that prohibit certain things that aren't mentioned in the document nevertheless pass constitutional muster. My guess is you knew you were just blowing hot air when you said that. Now, you are all up in arms (no pun intended) and concerned about "what some people are trying to do to [the Second Amendment]". Who are these boogey men? How powerful are they? Do they really and truly have any real chance of doing harm to a treasured civil right? Get real. They have about as much chance of causing "real" "infringment" on the Second Amendment as the Tuck Rule has of getting reinstated in the NFL. Are we really worried about the "slippery slope"? Shouldn't be. I'm not. But I don't fall for unconvincing scare tactics.

Bottom line: background checks are constitutional. A law allowing them would not "infringe" on the right of the people to bear arms. Simply wouldn't. Check out what Justice Scalia said on behalf of a majority of the Court in 2008.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Read those "conditions" and "qualifications" to include background checks my friend. Background checks are designed to limit the possession of firearms by felons. Totally constitutionally permissible. You can disagree with background check legislation, which you are free to do. But on the question of their constitutionality, they do not violate the Second Amendment.

Finally, the truth is that over 90% of Americans, including many gun owners (the intelligent ones that don't fall for scare tactics), want backgrond check laws to pass. Over 90%!! The Senate may have voted it down this time, but sooner or later it will pass. Then it will be challenged in the Supreme Court. Then the Supreme Court will rule the law to be constitutional.

And I don't need any condesending lectures on the Constitution or The Bill of Rights from someone who fancies himself as some sort of "constitutional scholar lite", thank you very much.

by George1963 Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:50 am

You say if the constitution does not grant a right (of Congress to pass a background check law), then they can't do it. For me to even respond to that absurd argument would be to dignify it beyond what it deserves.

Tenth amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Are we really worried about the "slippery slope"? Shouldn't be. I'm not. But I don't fall for unconvincing scare tactics.

Unconvincing scare tactics. The '94 assault weapons ban outlawed 18 weapons by name. This one last January would have outlawed 120.
The old one required a weapon to have two of the largely cosmetic traits to be banned. The proposed one requires one.
And yes Gup, cosmetic traits. Read the law and the bill. It's not something I made up and it's not a scare tactic it's a friggin' fact.
A thumbhole stock makes a 10/22 a banned military style assault weapon. Military "style" should tell you all you need to know.
Currently retails sales of weapons are subject to background checks. The bill that was defeated would expand that to private sale and in some cases familial transfers.
But theres no slippery slope.

Who are these boogey men? How powerful are they? Do they really and truly have any real chance of doing harm to a treasured civil right? Get real. They have about as much chance of causing "real" "infringment" on the Second Amendment as the Tuck Rule has of getting reinstated in the NFL.

They already have, you're just to brainwashed to see it.

And I don't need any condesending lectures on the Constitution or The Bill of Rights from someone who fancies himself as some sort of "constitutional scholar lite", thank you very much.

You need it from someone because you don't seem to understand some of the most basic things about it.
Rights are granted by the Constitution? That'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Bottom line: background checks are constitutional.

I don't believe I ever said the weren't. As a matter of fact I pointed out how they did manage to pass constitutional muster.
Much as with Obamacare, a way was found to make something unconstitutional OK.

They're legal. But why have them? Why not just have licences. Renew them and do a background check every year. Why do a background check for each weapon. Not each sale, btw. Each weapon. Different check and different form returned for each weapon.
Can you think of any reason the government would want to do it in this pretty cumbersome way rather than the much more "common sense" approach of relying on licensure?
I can.

Simply wouldn't. Check out what Justice Scalia said on behalf of a majority of the Court in 2008.

I know what Scalia said in Heller. I also know it's pretty funny to cite a case where a gun ban was ruled unconstitutional to try to make your point.

You talk about what the Founding Fathers "wrote", but don't provide a single example.

And you don't care enough to look it up.

by guppy Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:31 pm

George1963 wrote:

I know what Scalia said in Heller. I also know it's pretty funny to cite a case where a gun ban was ruled unconstitutional to try to make your point.

Why is that funny? You're again failing at being convincing. You don't even know what my point is, or at least you don't want to stick to it. In Heller the ban on handguns in the home was ruled unconstitutional. Yes, that's the bottom line holding of the case. But that's not all that was discussed the Court's opinion, as you well know. Many, many pages of discussion was devoted to an analysis of the Second Amendment, including an exhaustive historical analysis. Included in that discussion was reconfirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment is not unlimited. Just like there are limits on free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, etc., there are limits on the right to bear arms. Or do you not accept that basic tenet? You must think it is an "infringement" on the right to bear arms for "them" to pass a law that makes it illegal to bring a gun on a plane. Do you? I'm not sure, so that's why I'm wondering. I'm joking here of course, but my point is, you seem to waaaay out there on the fringe with your paranoia over legitimate gun control efforts. The very word "control" in the phrase "gun control" must be repugnant to you. How dare "they" try to "control" anything when it comes to our guns. "They" should just leave us alone. That's what real freedom means, right?

So, rather than it being "funny" that I cited the Court's analysis of the Second Amendment in a case where the ban on handguns was struck down, in fact, just the opposite is true. To cite the Court's statement that the Second Amendment "is not unlimited" (a principle you seem to be unable, or have a hard time, to even voice an acceptance of) taken from a case that upheld the Second Amendment, makes my point more powerfully, not less. You not only whiffed on the above statement, you whiffed bad. For guy who likes to tell others that they don't know what they're talking about, and calls others that disagree with him "brainwashed", among other insults, you come up with some pretty unconvincing and unpersuasive ways of attacking the other person's position. That's what I think is "pretty funny".

You just keep sticking to concern over "them' taking away our guns, and the "slippery slope" and all that, and I'll stick to supporting common sense background checks, how they are not at all "infringing" on the right to bear arms (yes, it is a "right", happy?), as well as their constitutional legality. I, along with millions of Americans, view such things as "reasoned" gun control legislation that will help reduce things like illegal gun trafficing. (I said "reduce", not eliminate. Obviously, nothing can completely eliminate illegal activity.) How do we know the law will work unless we try? It really -- in the end -- comes down to a choice. We have to choose. What is more important to us? People's safety? Children's lives? Or shielding gun owners from a relatively harmless administrative process they might have to buck up and deal with from time to time?

Let me be very clear. EVERY person who is of legal age, who is not a criminal, who is not mentally ill, who wants a gun, should be able to buy one. Every person!...........just so long as we first check them out and insure they are of legal age, not criminals, and not mentally ill.

by guppy Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:47 pm

George1963 wrote:

Rights are granted by the Constitution? That'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

I'm tempted to use an explitive deleted here, but I'll refrain. You know what I meant. OK, rights are inherent. They are granted by God. The Constitution/Bill Of Rights does not create our rights as human beings. It codifies them. They already existed before the document was written. They are merely set forth and enumerated in the document. The document assigns numbers to them and organizes them in separate paragraphs. But they exist inherently in all human beings. You OK now? So stick it.

by ~Sheila~ Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:13 pm

It's official, Aaron Hernandez has been charged with murder.

by guppy Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:16 pm

~Sheila~ wrote:It's official, Aaron Hernandez has been charged with murder.

And he has been denied bail. Held without bail.

And cut by the Patriots. No longer on the team.

What a fool. Took a winning lottery ticket from the Patriots and flushed it down the toilet. For what? To be a tough gansta dude?

Forget Hernandez. My sympathies are with the family of the dead victim.

by guppy Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:56 pm

The headlines already read "EX-Patriots tight end charged....."

by ~Sheila~ Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:52 pm

guppy wrote:The headlines already read "EX-Patriots tight end charged....."

Yes, I noticed that also in that article.
I don't understand these thugs. They take all they were given and just throw it away and for what?

by guppy Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:29 pm

~Sheila~ wrote:
guppy wrote:The headlines already read "EX-Patriots tight end charged....."

Yes, I noticed that also in that article.
I don't understand these thugs. They take all they were given and just throw it away and for what?

I think we need the assistance of a psychologist or two to answer that question. He talked like he was leaving the thug life behind. He was very sincere and believeable. But in reality he played those who gave him everything for fools.  He couldn't cut the cord and his ties to his old thug buddies. He was hungry and worked hard before he got the money. But once he got the money, he reverted; he regressed.

The thing is, this was his friend that he killed (if proven guilty). I don't care how angry you get at something, or what your "friend" did (outside of causing bodily harm to a loved one of yours), there is simply NO EXCUSE - NONE - that can justify you losing control of yourself so badly that you become so purple with rage that you lose your mind and act it out by going for your gun and unloading it on your "friend" -- unless you do it in self defense, because the "friend" is the one who lost it, and it was the "friend" who was going for his gun first. Lets say, hypothetically, that is the defense here, that it was self defense. But the only two witnesses were the two people present, and one of them is dead. If you are the prosecutor, how do you prove it was murder, and not self defense? Per the 5th Amendment, Hernandez would not have to take the stand. The prosecution would have to prove a case of murder based on circumstantial evidence.  The jury would be allowed to draw inferences from evidence such as he destroyed the video surveillance system in his house, and he destroyed his cell phone. What are the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts? But at this point I haven't heard his lawyer say one word about self defense. We'll see how it all plays out.

by guppy Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:11 pm

Just listened to the entire arraingment. First degree murder, execution style. Gun charges....no license to carry, no firearm ID card, possession of a large capacity firearm and no FID card. Jeezus.  Looks to me like he had plenty of opportunity to avoid this and not have it happen. He didn't. He did the opposite. All at 3:00 in the morning. He's not a sympathetic figure at all. You got $40 million bucks. You got a big house in the suburbs. You're famous. Why go out to clubs with low lifes at 3:00 in the morning with lots of guns like you're getting ready for a war? The sheer stupidity of it is mind blowing.

It makes me ask this question. The guy is one brain dead mo fo, thats for sure. How in the hell was he ever able to digest and understand, in that messed up brain of his, the New England Patriots offense? He is clearly a dumb, stupid moron. Yet he grasped the offense, knew the plays, and ran the right routes. How the hell did he manage that?

Which now brings me to another rambling thought. This is why I like hockey players best of all athletes.  They go out on the ice and absolutely give up their bodies and kill each other.  Check out the injuries Patrice Bergeron played with for the Bruins in the finals.  Then when its over, they get in line and shake hands while their faces are still bleeding and their ribs are cracked. How many hockey players ever get arrested or are involved in shit like this? They kill each other on the ice, and then they probably go play golf together off it. Hockey players are my favorite athletes of all.

Oh, and if you are of a mind, Google Lindsey Vecchione, the girlfriend of Blackhawks Captain Jonathan Toews.  This guy is now the Captain of the Stanley Cup Champions AND he has the THE hottest girlfriend on planet earth. And I thought Tom Brady had life by the balls. Toews is the new champ. Do I sound jealous?  lol.

by ~Sheila~ Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:18 am

guppy wrote:Just listened to the entire arraingment. First degree murder, execution style. Gun charges....no license to carry, no firearm ID card, possession of a large capacity firearm and no FID card. Jeezus.  Looks to me like he had plenty of opportunity to avoid this and not have it happen. He didn't. He did the opposite. All at 3:00 in the morning. He's not a sympathetic figure at all. You got $40 million bucks. You got a big house in the suburbs. You're famous. Why go out to clubs with low lifes at 3:00 in the morning with lots of guns like you're getting ready for a war? The sheer stupidity of it is mind blowing.

It makes me ask this question. The guy is one brain dead mo fo, thats for sure. How in the hell was he ever able to digest and understand, in that messed up brain of his, the New England Patriots offense? He is clearly a dumb, stupid moron. Yet he grasped the offense, knew the plays, and ran the right routes. How the hell did he manage that?

Which now brings me to another rambling thought. This is why I like hockey players best of all athletes.  They go out on the ice and absolutely give up their bodies and kill each other.  Check out the injuries Patrice Bergeron played with for the Bruins in the finals.  Then when its over, they get in line and shake hands while their faces are still bleeding and their ribs are cracked. How many hockey players ever get arrested or are involved in shit like this? They kill each other on the ice, and then they probably go play golf together off it. Hockey players are my favorite athletes of all.

Oh, and if you are of a mind, Google Lindsey Vecchione, the girlfriend of Blackhawks Captain Jonathan Toews.  This guy is now the Captain of the Stanley Cup Champions AND he has the THE hottest girlfriend on planet earth. And I thought Tom Brady had life by the balls. Toews is the new champ. Do I sound jealous?  lol.

I also heard on the news that 30 players from the NFL have been arrested in 2013 so far!

by George1963 Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:21 am

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 10:18 am

I also heard on the news that 30 players from the NFL have been arrested in 2013 so far!

That's not bad. Not as bad as it sounds anyway. I heard during the lockout something about how they had to get these guys back to work because 29 of them had been arrested and I got curious. I tried to figure out if that was a high rate and it turns out it's remarkably low.
If you took any random group of 1800 22-34 year old men, 60% black, 157 of them will be arrested in the first six months of a year. I would have liked to find out what it would have been with that demo of guys that average 2 mil a year but the IRS wouldn't help me out on that. Hernandez' arrest puts the NFL dead on average on murder since Rae Carruth.

Side note, I looked up Carruth to make sure I remembered how long ago that was and saw he's scheduled for release in 5 years.
Kill your 8 months pregnant girlfriend and do 20 years.
That's why I moved to South Carolina and not North.

by George1963 Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:28 pm

Lets say, hypothetically, that is the defense here, that it was self defense. But the only two witnesses were the two people present, and one of them is dead. If you are the prosecutor, how do you prove it was murder, and not self defense? Per the 5th Amendment, Hernandez would not have to take the stand.

It's pretty much impossible to try self defense without the defendants testimony. Also, your actions after the fact will go a long way towards whether or not that defense will fly.
There was a guy in Las Vegas in about 1992. Small time drug dealing college kid. Somebody came to his house to buy and it turns out it was a ripoff. The kid fought him and wound up stabbing him to death. Then he dragged the body outside and threw it in the dumpster. It took all of about 15 minutes to figure it out. Anyway, the kid told his story and they asked him why didn't you just call the cops. He said he had drugs in the apartment. Really? Did you have a toilet in the apartment? Better still, how about leaving the dead guy on the floor and throwing the pot in the dumpster? So instead of doing a couple of months for whatever might have been left lying around had he cleaned up, or even a couple of years if it came out that it was a drug deal gone bad (Not sure how that would happen. The dead guy wasn't talking), he got 25 to life and wound up getting killed in prison two years later. Nobody's buying self defense if you try to cover up the crime.

Up until last week he was the biggest moron I'd ever heard of.

by George1963 Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:17 pm

Gun charges....no license to carry, no firearm ID card, possession of a large capacity firearm and no FID card.

That tells you something about the guy too. He had zero police record. Probably plenty of contact and I'm sure he committed his share of crimes. He shot a guy in the face after all, but he had a squeaky clean record. Even in a state with gun laws as draconian as Massachusetts he could have had anything he wanted. Unless his town police chief was a complete prick he could have had anything including a concealed carry permit and he didn't even have a FID.

Permits aren't gangster I guess.

by guppy Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:00 pm

George1963 wrote:Gun charges....no license to carry, no firearm ID card, possession of a large capacity firearm and no FID card.

That tells you something about the guy too. He had zero police record. Probably plenty of contact and I'm sure he committed his share of crimes. He shot a guy in the face after all, but he had a squeaky clean record. Even in a state with gun laws as draconian as Massachusetts he could have had anything he wanted. Unless his town police chief was a complete prick he could have had anything including a concealed carry permit and he didn't even have a FID.

Permits aren't gangster I guess.

This guy had us and the Pats totally fooled. I truly believe that.   Here's what he said when the team extended him:

"I knew it was coming, just cause, when Gronk got it, I knew there was a good chance I was next in line," he said. "Now that it happened, it's definitely a blessing, and take it in, I'm excited to go on with my life.

"As soon as we started talking about contracts, I was emotional from that day on," he continued. "Honestly, it's hard for me here (at the gala) to stay, keeping my mind off it, and it's just, like I said, it's surreal. Probably when I'm done with this conversation I'll get some tears in my eyes. But it's real, and it's an honor."

Complete bullshit. All along he was a ticking time bomb. Its still surreal. In hindsight his signing early before his rookie contract ran out looks like a complete misjudgment.  Now its going to cost them big time in cap hits for a couple of years at least.

Screwed. Screwed. Screwed.

Finally, what makes me shake my head in disgust is the type of firearms guys like him seem to think they need. He had handgun, plus large capacity weapons too. WTF?  When he goes out clubbing to either Boston or Providence from his toney suburban mansion, does he think he's going to the front lines of Afgahnistan to face the Taliban? Why all the firepower? Wouldn't just one handgun serve the purpose? The fact that he feels he needs to carry all that artillery just tells me his mind is not in this universe, but in some alternate reality.

by George1963 Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:28 am

Need to take back the 'wannabe gangster douche' thing. I based that on the FBI saying there are no real gangs in Bristol. Hernandez must have commuted, because according to my brother they classed him at the county jail and he's real. LK and Blood. Good thing McGinest isn't still around.

It's kinda surprising though, because usually a good gang, wrong way to put that, an established gang wouldn't let somebody run around as out of control as this guy seems to be for as long as he did. I guess I'll have to take back the comment about him not doing well in prison too. He'll be ok, he has friends there.

by guppy Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:53 pm

What's "LK and Blood"?

by George1963 Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:29 pm

guppy wrote:What's "LK and Blood"?

Like dual citizenship. It happens.

by guppy Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:50 pm

George1963 wrote:
guppy wrote:What's "LK and Blood"?

Like dual citizenship. It happens.

As you can see, my familiarity with the gang culture and terminology is shall we say, limited.

by George1963 Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:51 pm

guppy wrote:What's "LK and Blood"?

Not Blood like West Coast Blood. Bloodline Latin King. It's like an offshoot or a wing or something. This is the first time I ever heard of it. Anyway, our boy Aaron claims both and has the pretty pictures on himself to prove it.
Charming.
How many kid size 85 jerseys do you think have wound up in MA landfills in the last week?

by George1963 Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:53 pm

guppy wrote:
George1963 wrote:
guppy wrote:What's "LK and Blood"?

Like dual citizenship. It happens.

As you can see, my familiarity with the gang culture and terminology is shall we say, limited.

Don't say that like it's a bad thing.

by guppy Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:08 pm

George1963 wrote:
guppy wrote:
George1963 wrote:
guppy wrote:What's "LK and Blood"?

Like dual citizenship. It happens.

As you can see, my familiarity with the gang culture and terminology is shall we say, limited.

Don't say that like it's a bad thing.

George, I'm angry. And I'm sad. Very sad over this whole thing. Its terrible going back and forth being angry and sad.

by ~Sheila~ Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:38 pm

George1963 wrote:by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 10:18 am

I also heard on the news that 30 players from the NFL have been arrested in 2013 so far!

That's not bad. Not as bad as it sounds anyway. I heard during the lockout something about how they had to get these guys back to work because 29 of them had been arrested and I got curious. I tried to figure out if that was a high rate and it turns out it's remarkably low.
If you took any random group of 1800 22-34 year old men, 60% black, 157 of them will be arrested in the first six months of a year. I would have liked to find out what it would have been with that demo of guys that average 2 mil a year but the IRS wouldn't help me out on that. Hernandez' arrest puts the NFL dead on average on murder since Rae Carruth.

Side note, I looked up Carruth to make sure I remembered how long ago that was and saw he's scheduled for release in 5 years.
Kill your 8 months pregnant girlfriend and do 20 years.
That's why I moved to South Carolina and not North.

He should be in for life, not 20 years! A fetus is more than viable at 8 months old, he should have been charged with two counts of murder.

LOL at your reasoning for SC over NC.

by ~Sheila~ Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:41 pm

George1963 wrote:Lets say, hypothetically, that is the defense here, that it was self defense. But the only two witnesses were the two people present, and one of them is dead. If you are the prosecutor, how do you prove it was murder, and not self defense? Per the 5th Amendment, Hernandez would not have to take the stand.

It's pretty much impossible to try self defense without the defendants testimony. Also, your actions after the fact will go a long way towards whether or not that defense will fly.
There was a guy in Las Vegas in about 1992. Small time drug dealing college kid. Somebody came to his house to buy and it turns out it was a ripoff. The kid fought him and wound up stabbing him to death. Then he dragged the body outside and threw it in the dumpster. It took all of about 15 minutes to figure it out. Anyway, the kid told his story and they asked him why didn't you just call the cops. He said he had drugs in the apartment. Really? Did you have a toilet in the apartment? Better still, how about leaving the dead guy on the floor and throwing the pot in the dumpster? So instead of doing a couple of months for whatever might have been left lying around had he cleaned up, or even a couple of years if it came out that it was a drug deal gone bad (Not sure how that would happen. The dead guy wasn't talking), he got 25 to life and wound up getting killed in prison two years later. Nobody's buying self defense if you try to cover up the crime.

Up until last week he was the biggest moron I'd ever heard of.

Stupid is as stupid does.

by ~Sheila~ Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:43 pm

George1963 wrote:Need to take back the 'wannabe gangster douche' thing. I based that on the FBI saying there are no real gangs in Bristol. Hernandez must have commuted, because according to my brother they classed him at the county jail and he's real. LK and Blood. Good thing McGinest isn't still around.

It's kinda surprising though, because usually a good gang, wrong way to put that, an established gang wouldn't let somebody run around as out of control as this guy seems to be for as long as he did. I guess I'll have to take back the comment about him not doing well in prison too. He'll be ok, he has friends there.

That's pretty sad.

by Sponsored content