Why Does The USDA Need These .40 cal Weapons

[Crabtownboy]

Since when is the 2nd amendment not part of the constitution?

Who said it isn't part of the Constitution. You brought it up and I agree with you, it applied to individuals. Are you saying it is illegal for a government agency to purchase weapons because it is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution? Or is it covered in other areas of the Constitution?

[/QUOTE]

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Who said it isn't part of the Constitution. You brought it up and I agree with you, it applied to individuals. Are you saying it is illegal for a government agency to purchase weapons because it is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution? Or is it covered in other areas of the Constitution?

Why? Anxious to pick yours up and join the "Civilian National Security Force" so you can shoot conservative rebels?

 

[Don]

But that's not what you originally asked. You asked about individual government employees having the same rights to defend themselves as the individuals our Constitution was desogned to protect. Your question was off-topic, invalid, and showed a lack of understanding of the basis for our Constitution.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

But that's not what you originally asked. You asked about individual government employees having the same rights to defend themselves as the individuals our Constitution was desogned to protect. Your question was off-topic, invalid, and showed a lack of understanding of the basis for our Constitution.

While at the same time CTB is on this thread telling us that "stand your ground" laws are licenses for private citizens to murder. He obviously has a problem with us defending ourselves, but no problem with employees of civilian government agencies being armed for no apparent reason. That's disturbing, if you ask me.

 

[Crabtownboy]

While at the same time CTB is on this thread telling us that "stand your ground" laws are licenses for private citizens to murder. He obviously has a problem with us defending ourselves, but no problem with employees of civilian government agencies being armed for no apparent reason. That's disturbing, if you ask me.

Actually I have a problem with both. I assume you do not as you defend "Stand your ground laws". They are licenses to kill with no evidence other than, "I believed my life was in danger" ... no matter how innocent the dead person was at the time of the shooting.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I know I shouldn't feed a troll, but I have to ask: How "innocent" is someone who is invading or otherwise illegally on private property not their own? Or who attacks someone following them because they don't belong where they are found to be?

And, if you have a problem with civilian government agency employees being armed to the teeth,why are you asking if there is any law against it, instead of simply saying there ought to be a law against it? There isn't, but the way, and that's as disturbing as your obvious disingenuous conflicting positions garnered from your two posts -- regardless of whether you deny or excuse the conflict or not.

 

[just-want-peace]

Crabby, 'pears as how you've been spending too much time sniffing your arm pits. At least that would explain your "rabbit trail" posting in this thread! :BangHead:

 

[just-want-peace]

This is just that "NATIONAL POLICE FORCE" the ZERO alluded to that was "needed" by the gov't; since apparently it was gonna take too long for the conversion of the military for this role.

Next on the agenda will probably be the Dept. Of Edu.??!! :thumbs:

 

[Crabtownboy]

I know I shouldn't feed a troll, but I have to ask: How "innocent" is someone who is invading or otherwise illegally on private property not their own? Or who attacks someone following them because they don't belong where they are found to be?

And, if you have a problem with civilian government agency employees being armed to the teeth,why are you asking if there is any law against it, instead of simply saying there ought to be a law against it? There isn't, but the way, and that's as disturbing as your obvious disingenuous conflicting positions garnered from your two posts -- regardless of whether you deny or excuse the conflict or not.

How innocent was the exchange student from Japan who knocked on a fellow's door to ask directions and was shot before he could utter a word? The homeowner felt he was in danger and shot and skilled the exchange student.

How innocent was the man who was shot and killed when he turned into a driveway to turn around. The homeowner flew that his life was in danger and shot and killed the man.

Simply an excuse for cowardly murders.

There ought to be, but will not be within my lifetime rational laws about gun ownership and use by both citizens and government agencies. Such laws are basically for fearful cowards.

 

[Don]

So now acknowledgement that his original question was invalid; and just a simple "guns scare me" statement. Okay.

 

[sag38]

Crabby, a person can claim "castle law" all he or she wants but it in no way is a free ticket to just shoot anyone even if they make you feel threatened. Did these examples you named get off scott free or did they just use "castle laws" as a defense strategy? Big difference between the two.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crabby, a person can claim "castle law" all he or she wants but it in no way is a free ticket to just shoot anyone even if they make you feel threatened. Did these examples you named get off scott free or did they just use "castle laws" as a defense strategy? Big difference between the two.

I know for sure the man who killed the Japanese student got off scott free.

I am not sure of the second incident. I do know his lawyer was going to use the Georgia stand your ground law. I have not found the outcome of the trial ... if there ever was one. I have found nothing showing this case was every taken to trial. It could be that it has not gone to trail yet.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I know for sure the man who killed the Japanese student got off scott free.

You are wrong. He had to pay $650,000 in civil damages. And the student's name was Yoshihiro Hattori. You should at least familiarize yourself with the facts of a story before you use it for a cheap political point.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You are wrong. He had to pay $650,000 in civil damages. And the student's name was Yoshihiro Hattori. You should at least familiarize yourself with the facts of a story before you use it for a cheap political point.

You are mixing up two court cases.

He got off scott free on the murder charge.

In a later case, a civil case he had to pay the parents $65,000.

Civil and criminal cases are differnt.

So though he had to pay in the civil case he got off scott free in the murder case. Murder through the stand your ground law.

You should familiarize yourself with rational replies before replying.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You have the figure wrong, by $585,000.

That is not Scot-free. No matter how you try and twist it.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You have the figure wrong, by $585,000.

That is not Scot-free. No matter how you try and twist it.

Actually we both were wrong. It was $650,000. The boys parents set up two charities with the money; one to fund US high school students to study in Japan and the second to lobby for gun control.

However that was the civil penalty. He got off Scott free on the murder change. The stand your ground law let him get away with murder.

Murder and civil charges are two different legal areas. You appear to have trouble comprehending that fact.

In another case Andrew de Vries was never brought to trail as his defense was to be stand your ground also. He didn't even open the door, just shot through it. Another murder allowed under stand your ground. Actually he was never indited. Sure, he paid a civil penalty, but got away with murder.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Actually we both were wrong. It was $650,000. The boys parents set up two charities with the money; one to fund US high school students to study in Japan and the second to lobby for gun control.

Sigh. $650,000 was my original quoted figure. I said you were off by $585,000. I was right. You were wrong.

that was the civil penalty. He got off Scott free on the murder change. The stand your ground law let him get away with murder.

Murder and civil charges are two different legal areas. You appear to have trouble comprehending that fact.

You gave no such caveat. You said he received no penalty for his actions. You were wrong.

In another case Andrew de Vries was never brought to trail as his defense was to be stand your ground also. He didn't even open the door, just shot through it. Another murder allowed under stand your ground. Actually he was never indited. Sure, he paid a civil penalty, but got away with murder.

Completely off the original topic. Start another thread about your opposition to the castle doctrine, please.
I request the thread be shut down now.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Closed at OP's request.