• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10941 Fuggin Awesome

About teeray


  • Location NC

teeray's Activity

  1. teeray added a post in a topic Looks like Cincinnati is next   

    If he was dragged it was because he was hanging onto the car himself.  His hand was on the door handle, then he tried to grab the guy, and then shot the guy in the head.
    It was murder.
    • 0
  2. teeray added a post in a topic Let's go to Wally World kids   

    So a company that hasn't fired anyone yet, and didnt mention wages, actually are possibly firing people because of wages because someone at hedgezero wildly speculated that it is true?
    BTW they made 16 billion dollars in profit last year.
    • 0
  3. teeray added a post in a topic Racism is Dead Part 89108392083: Black woman found dead in police custody   

    I am not saying they knew she was depressed.  That is my fault for not articulating my point well.  I am talking about throwing anyone in jail for 3 days who isnt accused of a non-violent or minor crime.  
    In other words the person in this case dealing with depression got caught up in the system over a minor traffic ticket.  Not that they knew and put her in jail.
    • 0
  4. teeray added a post in a topic Racism is Dead Part 89108392083: Black woman found dead in police custody   

    Probably not.  I am talking more on the larger picture of putting a person accused of a non-violent crime or minor crime in jail for 3 days for any reason.  In this case the underlying charge of failure to signal.
    • 0
  5. teeray added a post in a topic Racism is Dead Part 89108392083: Black woman found dead in police custody   

    Do you think addressing this incident with a dismissive "If she didnt hang herself she wouldnt be dead" is getting us closer to solving the issue, or getting us toward a 17th page?
    If somone is dealing with depression lets throw them in a cage for 3 days and see if they get better or worse.
    • 0
  6. teeray added a post in a topic Racism is Dead Part 89108392083: Black woman found dead in police custody   

    I wonder though, if she hadn't been jailed for 3 days over a simple failure to signal if she would have hung herself?
    I realize that is unanswerable, but it just doesn't make sense.
    • 0
  7. teeray added a post in a topic Another Officer killed at a traffic stop   

    Is the United States just that barabaric and uncivilized compared to other developed countries?
    Don't you think some people with bad ideas feel more empowered by having a gun?
    It is just hard for me to reconcile that we are that much more murderous than a country like Australia that was founded and began as a penal colony around the same time the US became a country.
    • 0
  8. teeray added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    I do read some contemporary stuff, but when I am trying to make my own judgments on something like this I prefer to do the research myself rather than read an author telling me what to believe.
    I appreciate your help in trying to find "reasonable" authors, but reasonableness is subjective.  Plus it is the logical fallacy of "argument to moderation".
    • 0
  9. teeray added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    Then vote for him!
    Having a debate about historical context of the 2nd amendment in 1790 and the reality of gun law in 2015 are two different conversations
    Fact is that the Supreme Court affirmed individual rights in the Heller case.  Unless that decision is overturned individual right is the law of the land.
    And me posting about the purposes and intent of the 2nd amendment doesnt change that fact.
    • 0
  10. teeray added a post in a topic Another Officer killed at a traffic stop   

    I can appreciate the kumbaya can't we all get along sentiment.  But this is something that has been building for decades and techonology is just bringing police practices into the spotlight and we as a society are re-evaluating these interactions and thinking "there is something wrong here". 
    40-50 police officers get killed every year.  It is a dangerous job.  But the job of law enforcement officer has implied risks.  You know that going in.  At the same time we have to somehow stop installing the mentality that their lives are in perpetual danger.  Admittedly a delicate balancing act there, but now we have police who assume the worst in every situation to the point where they are shooting or escalating a situation when it is not necessary.
    To me the owness is on the police officers to change procedurally for a couple of reasons. 1-  they are the ones with power in any given situation. 2- you cant control every citizen, but we can control police procedure and rules of engagement.
    No matter what you do there will still be police officers who get injured or killed in the line of duty.  That just comes with the job.  There will also be police homicides, we have an extremely armed populace so there will never be a way to completely eradicate police deaths or police homicides.  There is not a perfect solution, but there are changes that can be made to reduce opportunities for death of our citizens.
    Lastly, there always seem to be a contingent of usually conservative posters that have this mentality that people who point out to instances of police brutality or racism as the instigators.  To me this is an implicit endorsement of status quo and a shifting of blame from the people performing the acts to the people bringing those acts to the public's consciousness.  If we dont acknowledge police brutality or racism doesnt mean it isn't happening.  If you just ignore something it will never change.  And that is unacceptable on both fronts.
    If you think about it, until technology and social media began to shed light on these police practices, the public was largely unaware it existed or was as bad as some had claimed.  And until that happened there was no talk or public cry for reform.  Willful ignorance does not affect change, and in this case change is very much needed and overdue.
    • 4
  11. teeray added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    1- Again that is not true.  The "unorganized militia" is a phrase that was created for the Dick Act in 1902.  No one mentions anything about an unorganized militia during the constitutional debates leading up to ratification because there was no such thing.
    Plus if you want to use the legal definition of "unorganized militia" it would not include any women at all and no man over 45 years old, as that definition legally only applies to men ages 17 to 45. Not the "whole of the people" by any stretch.
    2- sorry that was my fault for not thoroughly explaining that, it only pertained to every able bodied man except for those that war activities were againt their religious beliefs
    Also, again you are wrong.  Actually people didnt have a choice not to arm themselves (except on religious grounds) it was mandatory for the men to attend military training, have arms, report to their officers, and train with their regiments by act of Congress after the ratification.
    3- I am simply pointing out that context matters to fully understand phraseology.  That isn't exactly a crazy notion lol
    4- not really trying trying to sway gun owners, just discussing the 2nd amendment and history.  Not going to solve any problems in the Tinderbox here on the Huddle.  
    5- Bernie Sander 2016!!
    • 0
  12. teeray added a post in a topic Stephen Hill injured, fairly serious   

    • 0
  13. teeray added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    There were no standing military, the militia were the people (gun advocates say this all the time).  And the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the state militias and subsequently their power and ability to defend themselves.  And because of that every able bodied man had to report for training usually twice a year, they were under the direction of state appointed officers, and were put in  different regiments.
    Everything about the 2nd amendment is in the context of military service and raising armies, and it's purposes was to allow states to defend themselves unilaterally.
    If you want to own a gun you should be required to volunteer for military service like the 2nd amendment intended
    • 1
  14. teeray added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    Glad you brought up the Patrick Henry  ratification speech.  That speech further illustrates my position.
    In that speech Henry explains why the power of state militias and them staying in jurisdiction of State government was in his opinion paramount to individual liberty.  The case he made (along with many other anti-federalists) is exactly why the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights
    The entire premise of his speech was that the Constitution usurps all individual state powers, and that Congress would disarm a state's militia, use a state's militia against them, or refuse to arm their state's militia. 
    Patrick Henry was actually simply rejecting the idea that "states" and "the people" were essentially the same thing as federalists who wrote and advocated for the ratification of the Constitution had been assuring him. 
    His argument directly led to the 2nd amendment
    He articulates the concerns in that very speech:
    The fear of the federal government disarming State militias and thus threatening their independence was the exact reason the 2nd amendment was put in place.  To acquiesce those fears and to ensure the federal government would not usurp State powers and force a tyrannical rule by overthrowing state governments either by military force or legislatively disarming them.
    • 0
  15. teeray added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    So you are saying that if I wrote a document that referred to people in a church 20 times and referred to people in a school once, that that one time really meant people in a church because it did every other time?  Lol okay.
    The State militias were composed of the people, and in both the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers the phrase "the people" were used in the context of the States and their governments when discussing balance of power between the federal government and State governments.
    Even the earliest drafts show that "military service" and "bear arms" has same meaning and intent.  That is why there was little difference in the language used.  You could not be compelled to perform "military service" or you could not he compelled to "bear arms" means essentially the same thing.  You couldnt be forced into military service if it conflicted with religous beliefs.
    Plus you ignored your own statement when you essentially said they meant in early drafts "you have a right, but you also have a right to not have a right." which is nonsensical.
    Gun advocates always ignore the context of that time when it came to standing armies, state loyalty, and how national and State defense mechanism worked during the time.
    The people were more loyal to their states than the nation, and the state governments were thought to better represent their people.
    "The security of a free State" addresses exactly that.  It doesnt mean "preserve the condition of national freedom" it means to protect the power of the individual states and their people and their governments.
    If the amendment means what you say it means then the authors actually were idiots and sputtered out sentence fragments on the level of 4th grade English.  I tend to agree with you that they were not idiots and said exactly what they meant in the context of that time period's language and context of military in the US at that time.
    • 0