The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

NickH said:
Per US Law, the definition is quite broad:

A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.

But since the morons haven't actually endangered anyone yet, calling them terrorists is premature.
Click to expand...

Key words are 'if the act appears to be intended to'.
 
av8tr1 said:
Actually no you don't have a "right" to drop your kids off at school without having to worry about someone going on a shooting spree.

You do have a right to carry a gun and protect your child from someone going on a shooting spree. Or you can wait for the authorities to show up and right a report.

Worlds a dangourous place @Seggy. Suck it up buttercup. Cowboyup, Put your big boy pants on and stop sucking the government teet.
Click to expand...

Ok.
 
Cptnchia said:
I have the right to be able to allow my son to drive himself to school without having to worry about someone going on a drunken rampage in a car because they are easily able to obtain alcohol. Why aren't you worried about something that kills a lot more people every year?
Click to expand...

Maybe one day you will need to blow into a device to be able to start the car? If that is what makes us safer, I am ok with that. Such as I am ok with safer laws towards guns.

I have the right to be able to drop my girls off at school without having to worry about thugs posting on social media that all white girls should be raped. By your definition, that's a terrorist threat. Maybe it's time we did away with the first amendment since you want to get rid of the second. After all, it was written in a time a lot different than today.
Click to expand...

One can't always say what the want to say.
 
av8tr1 said:
Really? Holy cow are you out of touch with reality!

The protestors destroyed major parts of both cities. Damages in the 10s of millions.

How about you google Baltimore mayor and protests and do your own dam sourcing or are you just looking for a cheap thrill to get your rocks off of trolling?
Click to expand...

Ok.
 
Seggy said:
It isn't missing. It is a different and independent factor.
Click to expand...

A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
 
Seggy said:
Maybe one day you will need to blow into a device to be able to start the car? If that is what makes us safer, I am ok with that. Such as I am ok with safer laws towards guns.



One can't always say what the want to say.
Click to expand...

So where are all the threads where you rail against drunk driving? Where are all the threads where you condemn inciteful speech?

Or is it that you really don't care about any of this, but just want to tweak noses and engage in some "social experimenting" by playing the troll here?
 
NickH said:
A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
Click to expand...

If I were on a jury it would be easy to believe that if one posts a youtube video saying bye to friends and family and then they occupy a federal building is committing an act dangerous to human life.

Remember, these folks have set up snipers in the past (probably doing the same here) and are probably setting up armed patrols. Furthermore, not allow police to freely patrol the area can be said is also a danger to human life.

So, as I have said, it is terrorism.
 
Cptnchia said:
So where are all the threads where you rail against drunk driving? Where are all the threads where you condemn inciteful speech?
Click to expand...

It hasn't come up here much. Guns do.

Or is it that you really don't care about any of this, but just want to tweak noses and engage in some "social experimenting" by playing the troll here?
Click to expand...

So am I trolling because I have a different view towards guns than you do?
 
Seggy said:
If I were on a jury it would be easy to believe that if one posts a youtube video saying bye to friends and family and then they occupy a federal building is committing an act dangerous to human life. Or putting snipers up.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, there would be a prosecutor who actually understands the law, and wouldn't file such silly charges.
 
Seggy said:
You graduated law school? Didn't know that!
Click to expand...

No, but I have the ability to comprehend it. You should probably start with that, as your 'independent factors' comment shows you are having some difficulty.

The actual law states:

(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

  • `(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

  • `(B) appear to be intended--

  • `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

  • `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

  • `(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

  • `(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

So (A), (B) and (C) must all be met, while only one of (i), (ii) or (iii). It's really quite simple. Think really hard and you might get there.

​
 
NickH said:
No, but I have the ability to comprehend it. You should probably start with that, as your 'independent factors' comment shows you are having some difficulty.

The actual law states:

(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

  • `(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

  • `(B) appear to be intended--

  • `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

  • `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

  • `(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

  • `(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

So (A), (B) and (C) must all be met, while only one of (i), (ii) or (iii). It's really quite simple. Think really hard and you might get there.

​
Click to expand...

Once again, they have already met all the requirements.
 
Seggy said:
Same place as yours.
Click to expand...
No, why do you get to blather on about what laws mean, but when someone disagrees with your interpretation of the law, your response is, "Where did you go to law school?"

If, according to you, they are wrong because they don't have a law degree, then you are also wrong because you don't have a law degree.

I really don't care what you think, or want done. I do have an issue with you playing fast and loose with definitions and meanings of words. You do like twisting things to make your argument. I guess those years as an alpaoid have really burnished the political operative in you.
 
Cptnchia said:
No, why do you get to blather on about what laws mean, but when someone disagrees with your interpretation of the law, your response is, "Where did you go to law school?"
Click to expand...

Because I know enough about law (I have been exposed to it a lot) that we can go back and forth all we want here, but in the end it really doesn't matter because it is always evolving, changing, and keeping up with our society.

If, according to you, they are wrong because they don't have a law degree, then you are also wrong because you don't have a law degree.
Click to expand...

If you look at the post sequence, he made it clear to me I was wrong and that 'a prosecutor wouldn't bring silly charges'.

That is an assumption. He or I or you don't have a clue what a prosecutor will do.

I really don't care what you think, or want done. I do have an issue with you playing fast and loose with definitions and meanings of words. You do like twisting things to make your argument. I guess those years as an alpaoid have really burnished the political operative in you.
Click to expand...

Oh, so just because I want to help out fellow pilots and the Association I pay a lot of money to, that makes me an alpaoid. Playing fast and loose with definitions and words I see.
 
Seggy said:
Because I know enough about law (I have been exposed to it a lot) that we can go back and forth all we want here, but in the end it really doesn't matter because it is always evolving, changing, and keeping up with our society.



If you look at the post sequence, he made it clear to me I was wrong and that 'a prosecutor wouldn't bring silly charges'.

That is an assumption. He or I or you don't have a clue what a prosecutor will do.
Click to expand...

You're right, it is assumption. On both of you. Every thing you've posted, is your opinion and assumption. Nothing more.



Seggy said:
Oh, so just because I want to help out fellow pilots and the Association I pay a lot of money to, that makes me an alpaoid. Playing fast and loose with definitions and words I see.
Click to expand...
I have spend more time as an ALPA volunteer than you have, and paid more than you have too, 20 years worth on both counts, so spare me. What I haven't done though, is use that experience to grandstand, or as a basis to browbeat my opinion that may have differed from others. Your failing is that you believe yourself to be the most educated and smartest guy here. Problem is, you're not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top