Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Any body think like this?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2013, 07:14 AM   #51
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,301
Liked 564 Times on 331 Posts
Likes Given: 3209

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post

8th Amendment
Tell me, what does the Constitution consider cruel and unusual?
__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 08:47 AM   #52
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6557 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason609 View Post
Tell me, what does the Constitution consider cruel and unusual?
Tell me, if someone started torturing you, would you consider that cruel or humane?

If someone made your death slow and painful, would you consider that cruel or humane?

If someone did not give you sufficient food/water, would you consider this cruel or humane?

If someone beat you, would you consider this cruel or humane?

Quote:
In attempting to define cruel and unusual punishment, federal and state courts have generally analyzed two aspects of punishment: the method and the amount. As to the method of punishment, the Eighth Amendment clearly bars punishments that were considered cruel at the time of its Adoption, such as burning at the stake, crucifixion, or breaking on the wheel (see In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 10 S. Ct. 930, 34 L. Ed. 519 [1890]). In Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even if the prisoner does not suffer serious injury. When an inmate does suffer serious injury from the excessive use of force by prison officials, a violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause is clear. In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L. Ed. 2d 666 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment had been contravened when prison officials had disciplined an inmate for disruptive behavior by handcuffing him to a "hitching post", once for two hours and once for seven hours, depriving the inmate of his shirt, exposing him to the sun, denying his requests for hydration, and refusing to allow him the opportunity to use the bathroom.

However, a defendant need not suffer actual physical injury or pain before a punishment will be declared cruel and unusual. In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 78 S. Ct. 590, 2 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1958), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of denationalization (the deprivation of citizenship) as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment. The Court reasoned that when someone is denationalized, "[t]here may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is instead the total destruction of the individual's status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development." The Court also opined that the Eighth Amendment must "draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the death penalty itself is not inherently cruel, but has described it as "an extreme sanction, suitable to the most extreme of crimes" (gregg v. georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 [1976]). Federal and state courts have upheld modern methods of carrying out the death penalty, such as shooting, hanging, electrocution, and lethal injection, as constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that statutes providing a mandatory death sentence for certain degrees or categories of murder are unconstitutional because they preclude sentencing authorities from considering aspects of a particular defendant's character or record, or from considering circumstances that might mitigate a particular crime (see Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973 [1978]). In Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S. Ct. 2595, 91 L. Ed. 2d 335 (1986), the Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits states from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner who is insane.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 09:35 AM   #53
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,301
Liked 564 Times on 331 Posts
Likes Given: 3209

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post
Tell me, if someone started torturing you, would you consider that cruel or humane?

If someone made your death slow and painful, would you consider that cruel or humane?

If someone did not give you sufficient food/water, would you consider this cruel or humane?

If someone beat you, would you consider this cruel or humane?
Doesn't matter what I consider cruel or unusual. Especially considering I have a slight sadistic side...

The question asked was what does it say in the Constitution. Your entire reply cleary states "it doesn't specify" (my words used to summarize).

ANYTHING can be considered cruel. That word (as many others) has a subjective meaning when referring to extent. Poking someone in the arm with a pin once, is not cruel. Repeatedly poking them is.

Many people believe that when you place an inmate in solitary (even if it's for their own safety) to be considered cruel. Are they right? Are they wrong? Yes.

Hell, keeping a prisoner on death row for many years can be considered cruel, especially if there are no appeals going on.

That said, I don't condone torture when used as an interrogation method. I do, however, have no issues with water boarding as a form of punishment. Nor do I have issues with placing someone in stocks.

Criminals are sent to jail because they broke the law, and need to pay their debt. Many get out and go back to doing what they were doing, not because there is nothing else for them to do, nor is it because it's easier. They do it because they have not changed, because they were not given ample persuasion to stop.

I'm sorry, but if public humiliation (the stocks) or water boarding or public executions can stop repeat offenders, I say try it. But, we won't know if it'll work until we try it. What we do know, our current system of punishment does NOT work.
__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 11:04 AM   #54
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 5,012
Liked 5511 Times on 2725 Posts
Likes Given: 5862

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
-Declaration of Independence.

Everyone has rights that they are born with. A nation is nothing more than a group of people within a set border. Rights know no borders. They are universal, and eternal. They belong to the purest saint and the foulest sinner, the richest king and the poorest peasant, the bravest soldier and the weakest coward.

What I'm trying to say is, If we deny that man his rights, then we are no better than those who want to take our rights away. If we think it is acceptable to deny someone their God given rights, then who's to say that we ourselves won't be denied those very rights some day?

TW, This is actually one of the most painful discussions Ive engaged in in my life, not just here on FTF but as a rule. I am an American Fighting Man, I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution for my Nation just like millions before me. Try as I do, feelings do cloud the topic and take me very close to Hypocrisy and I dont like a hypocrite even if its me. I look to our founding documents to clarify my position and the sentence "We The People, of The United States of America" is the determinate factor for who has been bestowed our Constitutional rights and who has not. That does not mean those who are not "We the People" do not have Rights, they just cannot be guaranteed by our Constitution for those that are not responsible for its survival.

Our very own Service Members have never been afforded the same rights your saying terrorists should get. You can be sure that I do not have the 1A, 2A or any A as my protector while in service to my Nation. Additionally, those that wage war against the US have never been granted cart blanch Constitutional Rights. Hence the Geneva Conventions were ratified by member nations to enumerate basic human rights that all signers would agree to support if we were at war with each other. Those accords were designed to require even sworn enemies to allow each others captured specified human rights because Criminal law was never designed to do that.

Non US citizen committing Terrorist acts against us are not considered members of a Geneva Convention signatory Nation when they attack us without member nation status; thats where the term Enemy Combatant was derived from. The Nation of Islam has no flag, soil, border and even if it did, it never ratified the Geneva Accords.

When terrorists attack us, they do so with no authority from any nation and Rules of war are not part of their play books. When they capture or detain Americans; they murder, maim and torture Us and promise we will die a horrible death, they have delivered on their promise often and nearly always.

No, I do not support torture, I never have, still dont today; we cant withhold nutrients, water, shelter or Emergency Medical Services when available and we should never cause injury to them if they do not resist detention. I do not feel that Water-boarding or investigatory sedation are torture. Unspecified and indeterminate detention isnt inappropriate when they are not members of any government recognized to negotiate the terms of transfer or release once combat has ceased.

We the People do not wage war on religions, only Nations. We are not at war with any nation on this planet today other than North Korea and even our status with them is a sustained ceasefire. The war on Terrorism and Drugs are not real wars but they have produced real casualties. Rights without responsibilities are not Natural nor Constitutional; we cannot permit Terrorists to attain a status that they swear they will never apply to our citizens.

"If we deny that man his rights, then we are no better than those who want to take our rights away."


We have not denied nor have I advocated the withholding from him of a single solitary human right, (I think you give him extra points for being a "Man" that most of us would not assign in this case; A Man does not kill defenseless other Men, Women and Children). He has been given by "We the People" what he chose to deny all others; the best medical care, food, shelter and 24 hour armed protection from those who would reek vengeance on him for what he and his brother did to them and us. He's even been given a bed in the very same facility as those he diced and sliced like Dr Mengele and his protectors are the very same badge carrying citizens who he shot dead in cold blood with no warning.

I do appreciate that we can have these discussions without getting out of control, I respect and value your concerns and understand the basis for your conclusions. I cant apologize for being unyielding in my beliefs because I believe the Constitution supports my assertions 100%. The Rule of Law and war are not one in the same, they cannot ever be the same.
__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
eatmydust Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 02:03 PM   #55
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6557 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason609 View Post
Doesn't matter what I consider cruel or unusual. Especially considering I have a slight sadistic side...

The question asked was what does it say in the Constitution. Your entire reply cleary states "it doesn't specify" (my words used to summarize).

ANYTHING can be considered cruel. That word (as many others) has a subjective meaning when referring to extent. Poking someone in the arm with a pin once, is not cruel. Repeatedly poking them is.

Many people believe that when you place an inmate in solitary (even if it's for their own safety) to be considered cruel. Are they right? Are they wrong? Yes.

Hell, keeping a prisoner on death row for many years can be considered cruel, especially if there are no appeals going on.

That said, I don't condone torture when used as an interrogation method. I do, however, have no issues with water boarding as a form of punishment. Nor do I have issues with placing someone in stocks.

Criminals are sent to jail because they broke the law, and need to pay their debt. Many get out and go back to doing what they were doing, not because there is nothing else for them to do, nor is it because it's easier. They do it because they have not changed, because they were not given ample persuasion to stop.

I'm sorry, but if public humiliation (the stocks) or water boarding or public executions can stop repeat offenders, I say try it. But, we won't know if it'll work until we try it. What we do know, our current system of punishment does NOT work.
1. We don't do stocks any more,

2. Waterboarding is considered a type of torture, so it is cruel and unusual punishment.

I quoted a list of laws and cases that ruled certain things cruel and unusual. Maybe you should read through it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
TW, This is actually one of the most painful discussions Ive engaged in in my life, not just here on FTF but as a rule. I am an American Fighting Man, I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution for my Nation just like millions before me. Try as I do, feelings do cloud the topic and take me very close to Hypocrisy and I dont like a hypocrite even if its me. I look to our founding documents to clarify my position and the sentence "We The People, of The United States of America" is the determinate factor for who has been bestowed our Constitutional rights and who has not. That does not mean those who are not "We the People" do not have Rights, they just cannot be guaranteed by our Constitution for those that are not responsible for its survival.
The rights listed in the Constitution ARE the basic human rights. Those are the rights that are considered unalienable.

Quote:
Our very own Service Members have never been afforded the same rights your saying terrorists should get. You can be sure that I do not have the 1A, 2A or any A as my protector while in service to my Nation. Additionally, those that wage war against the US have never been granted cart blanch Constitutional Rights. Hence the Geneva Conventions were ratified by member nations to enumerate basic human rights that all signers would agree to support if we were at war with each other. Those accords were designed to require even sworn enemies to allow each others captured specified human rights because Criminal law was never designed to do that.
That does not make denying someone their rights right. ALL people should be afforded these basic rights.

Let me ask you this. In the late 40s and 50s, we had a lot of Nazi war criminals we had to deal with. They were given a fair trial and sentenced. Why shouldn't we give this guy the same thing? These war criminals had committed atrocities to millions of people, yet they were still given a trial.

Quote:
Non US citizen committing Terrorist acts against us are not considered members of a Geneva Convention signatory Nation when they attack us without member nation status; thats where the term Enemy Combatant was derived from. The Nation of Islam has no flag, soil, border and even if it did, it never ratified the Geneva Accords.
Are we not at war with these terrorists? The Geneva Convention AND the Constitution still apply.

Quote:
When terrorists attack us, they do so with no authority from any nation and Rules of war are not part of their play books. When they capture or detain Americans; they murder, maim and torture Us and promise we will die a horrible death, they have delivered on their promise often and nearly always.
Should we stoop to their level, or be the better men?

Quote:
No, I do not support torture, I never have, still dont today; we cant withhold nutrients, water, shelter or Emergency Medical Services when available and we should never cause injury to them if they do not resist detention. I do not feel that Water-boarding or investigatory sedation are torture. Unspecified and indeterminate detention isnt inappropriate when they are not members of any government recognized to negotiate the terms of transfer or release once combat has ceased.
Waterboarding is physiological torture, plain and simple.

Quote:
We the People do not wage war on religions, only Nations. We are not at war with any nation on this planet today other than North Korea and even our status with them is a sustained ceasefire. The war on Terrorism and Drugs are not real wars but they have produced real casualties. Rights without responsibilities are not Natural nor Constitutional; we cannot permit Terrorists to attain a status that they swear they will never apply to our citizens.
We're not at war? Tell that to the thousand who have died fighting in the middle east.

Quote:

"If we deny that man his rights, then we are no better than those who want to take our rights away."


We have not denied nor have I advocated the withholding from him of a single solitary human right, (I think you give him extra points for being a "Man" that most of us would not assign in this case; A Man does not kill defenseless other Men, Women and Children). He has been given by "We the People" what he chose to deny all others; the best medical care, food, shelter and 24 hour armed protection from those who would reek vengeance on him for what he and his brother did to them and us. He's even been given a bed in the very same facility as those he diced and sliced like Dr Mengele and his protectors are the very same badge carrying citizens who he shot dead in cold blood with no warning.
I call him a man, in the sense that he is a legal adult.

What he did is wrong, but we cannot deny him his rights. A fair trial IS a human right. The founding fathers would agree on that.

Quote:
I do appreciate that we can have these discussions without getting out of control, I respect and value your concerns and understand the basis for your conclusions. I cant apologize for being unyielding in my beliefs because I believe the Constitution supports my assertions 100%. The Rule of Law and war are not one in the same, they cannot ever be the same.
I respect your values and concerns too, even know I don't agree with some of them.

As said before, rights know no borders. Everyone has these rights. This is not an American thing, its a global thing. Do you think the founding fathers would have denied anyone these rights, regardless of their origin, or their actions? I don't think they would have.
__________________

Last edited by texaswoodworker; 04-26-2013 at 03:25 PM.
texaswoodworker is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 02:41 PM   #56
Administrator
FTF_ADMIN.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
notdku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hill Country,Texas
Posts: 5,563
Liked 697 Times on 387 Posts
Likes Given: 729

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eatmydust View Post
This is what I love to see in these forums, great reasoned, passionate debate, kept civil!
I agree which is why I have been reading.
__________________

Not Registered? Register now! - It's free and helps the community grow.

notdku is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 03:11 PM   #57
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
eatmydust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: pennsylvania
Posts: 3,267
Liked 2446 Times on 1437 Posts
Likes Given: 1354

Default

This thread is one of the best arguments I've seen for the need for rational men (and women) to have freedom of speech in some time.

These are trying times, the debate over how to handle a person who has committed heinous acts against humanity naturally stirs deep, dark, dangerous emotions in all of us. IMO, this is what made our Founding Fathers so great, they set up a form of law that allows us to reason, debate, argue and all the while protect us from persecution for voicing our innermost feelings and thoughts.

Many posters have made cogent, thoughtful arguments for their points of view, many of which are diametrically opposed to others views.

If more of society could partake of the input and output of debates like this, I can't imagine but that we'd have less senseless violence.

You folks are to be lauded for your efforts, I know it isn't easy.

__________________

Sent from my (_E=MC² _)

We do not choose our future, we choose our habits and our habits dictate our future. - anonymous


Last edited by eatmydust; 04-26-2013 at 03:17 PM. Reason: spelling
eatmydust is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 10:36 PM   #58
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 279
Liked 87 Times on 66 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post

Are you saying that all humans are endowed with our Constitutional Rights by virtue of them entering our nation regardless?
The constitution sets the boundaries of the moral code under natural law by which the subscribers follow.

if you subscribe to that code because it's right and just for humanity why would it differ for those who live on the other side of the fence. So yes.
__________________
lfcshooter is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 02:36 AM   #59
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 5,012
Liked 5511 Times on 2725 Posts
Likes Given: 5862

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lfcshooter View Post
The constitution sets the boundaries of the moral code under natural law by which the subscribers follow.

if you subscribe to that code because it's right and just for humanity why would it differ for those who live on the other side of the fence. So yes.
We are not technically at war with any nation at this time but North Korea. Our soldiers are in the absolute worst case scenario of trying to maintain the peace in nations that surrendered yet are rife with corruption. Our Service Members won the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their mission was complete. Those engaging our soldiers are terrorists not Soldiers, they hail from no flag, they seek to overthrow both the governments in those countries and our very own yet they have no country of their own.

So illegal Aliens should also be endowed with full constitutional rights once they cross our border? Is the Geneva Convention useless? Are rules of war obsolete and only applicable to US Service-members?

With all due respect, Ive never considered myself a "subscriber" to the constitution, just a citizen sworn to uphold it. Rights are not the same as morals, morals are not equal, only rights are, morals are subjective and inconsistent across the human spectrum.

I really do not believe the founders intended to give full Constitutional rights to anyone that bore no civil responsibilities under the the law. Otherwise the wording would have been, "We the People who entered the United States...". If Civic duty and responsibilities are no longer part of the term of our Constitution, we are doomed.

As the old adage said, Why buy the Cow when you can get the milk for free!
__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Is there any body out there joshfireart Wyoming Gun Forum 9 04-22-2014 01:17 PM
Body Guard 380 gwk4667 Semi-Auto Handguns 5 09-24-2011 02:40 PM
bolt body kzink General Rifle Discussion 4 01-08-2010 12:22 PM
Does any body OC ? dango Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 21 06-02-2009 12:33 PM