The Colorado movie theater shooting guy got life in prison penalty despite actively shooting all those people. The marathon bomber, on the other hand who less actively participated and killed much less people got the death penalty. Although I think that all criminal killers should be killed, I thought from the beginning that different application for discrimination and/or identity complex caused the difference in the marathon case but waited for this ruling to test that.

I just don't understand why some states that have the death penalty try to force some new chemical methods on everybody that its work cannot be seen from outside ? Are they trying to apply the eye for an eye principle? Of course not. They are most probably trying to come with a less painful way of killing. So why don't they offer that as an option? How hard is it to have classic methods of execution, like hanging, available? If the condemned person himself say he doesn't want your "better" way of execution why force it on him? 

Although I am speaking about an if situation for the death penalty, I still would want to say that, of course, is with assumption of certainty because the only thing that has a higher priority than executing a guilty killer is not executing an innocent person. But things like that movie theater shooting in Colorado, does anyone, or even the accused shooter himself have any doubt that he shot those people? If not, then letting him stay alive absent forgiveness of those who have the right to forgive in that shooting is a joke not justice.     

       

I was not trying to argue against seeing the issue as significant by those affected by it or in denial to the level of toleration in living with it all those years. I was just objecting to the use of it to divert attention from what happened in that church and the ease with which the lives of nine people were taken by one person.    

I just want to know how did an issue of someone walking into a place and with all the convenience and ease kills nine people had changed itself to a discussion about flags? Talk about a resistance to face an issue!

DOUBLE THE CRAZINESS

And if one thinks he saw it all with the outrageousness of that empowerment to kill and little care about taken lives, he may gets shocked again by discovering that his vision probably reached only halfway of that path of craziness. That is because if instead of being a victim, a person was the one who, for sure, committed a killing or even a mass shooting, you would see the valuation for his life suddenly reverses course and reaches the high level of being over the value of not even just one or two but a big number of his victim lives. 

One normally expects that if there is disregard or less than sufficient care for life somewhere then it would at least apply equally to both the victim and the guilty. Here on the other hand, instead of just passive carelessness about the victim, the guilty gets empowered to very easily take the life of the victim then the life of the guilty gets treated as if it has much more value. 

    

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!

There can hardly be a situation deserving the question Dr Phil keeps repeating , "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!" than this. It needs to be screamed through bullhorns all over the country. They easily give that power to take life with just a small movement of a finger and do that repeatedly then wonder what went wrong every time a mass murder happens.

Although hate and/or discrimination seems to be the reason behind that mass killing in that church on its face, regardless of the question of right and wrong, does it look like that the "suspect" has that kind of depth in that believe? Or does it look more like a shallow thing strengthened by the power to act on it? Does it look like that absent the convenience of a gun he would still have attacked that church to make whatever point he supposedly wanted to make?

And the acting like being in a playful state was even clearer with that shooting in Colorado where the "suspect" suddenly substituted himself for an action movie, with a title stating that the main character "Rises", in a movie theater and started shooting the attendees. Even if we want to ignore that, for close to three years now, did anyone hear any reason for that attack?

So, we should be careful and not pretend that we confuse actions where belief makes use of power with actions where power makes use of apparent believe. 

Something about premeditation

In addition to already having difficulties accepting all these first and second and the like of murder classes, I just noticed this about the premeditation requirement for a first degree murder charge.

Is the absence of what fits the premeditation requirement always makes the crime deserves better response for the guilty? What if the reason for the absence of that legal premeditation was being in a careless state? Should the premeditation be taken into consideration when there is a proven absence of what could have caused a momentarily decision? Why would killing with careless/playful mind set deserves less than the maximum punishment? Is there not enough signs for the system being abused because of not taking account of that?

It already was very far from justice to punish a killer with less than being killed just because he killed his victim in anger. So what does doing that for killing with a careless/playful state of mind take things?

How can things get better with these kind of laws that allow escaping responsibility for one's own action and shifting it on the victim instead. Why do laws here compensate the guilty and punish the victim?  

  

I spoke about this earlier. From the beginning solutions were not necessarily all or nothing. For example, why should a firearm intended for home protection be small and light weight? In addition, current technology and science, could make a huge difference here. For example, firearms could be made or altered so that, with the use of satellite and/or a remote control technology, are operable only within a specific limited locality or make a warning sound and visual signal out of those localities. Or at least they can be made trackable by satellite so that appropriate devices installed at public or gathering areas like supermarkets, schools, churches, movie theaters and the like can detect them. 

But nothing of that can be done unless people are released from the bondage of the so so long ago expired second amendment. 

The Real Patriotism

Real patriotism shows itself not with the raising of flags but with someone throughout decades and decades ago looking at the consequences or potential consequences of this mess and says we need to get rid of this. To me letting the country I live in be in this mess is as repugnant as accepting to live with the content of the septic tank inside my home. 

One may think that people could fail to manage things properly and choose the right path only with matters that apply differently on them. But how could an obviously necessary path where the justice and the need are in a unity like this be ignored like this? The question of life and death is like that of winning or losing lottery for something that is entirely man made and superimposed in this country but still they seem to have no problem with that neither for themselves nor for their moral principles.         

Especially cruel crimes

Last week I saw on TV someone who killed his mother smashing her head by hitting it repeatedly with a sledgehammer. I think that even if the principle of an eye for an eye is not applied generally, making a federal law that mandates its application when a crime reaches such level of cruelty is an idea that needs consideration.  

"cruel and unusual" 7

An analogy to that is when someone says that he has a long list to do using the word "long" instead of the word "big" to project serializing or sequencing for the purpose of emphasizing himself being a single executor even if most of those tasks can be overlapped and carried out concurrently except that the amendment  projects serializing or sequencing in order to suggest the status of being new for those processes.   

"cruel and unusual" 6

Using "cut processes" in the last part of the post below the previous was unnecessary and probably wrong. Instead one could have expressed that part stating:

Using a single process to represent the whole suggests an intention to separate the processes and that here seems to serve a purpose if it was a separation in time. That suggests creation more than application because it suggests, through the sequencing, the status of being new .    

"cruel and unusual" 5

Even if the part about punishments in the eighth amendment had came in a separate amendment of its own, that would still have not made me any close to understand it to mean forcing the overriding of clear rules of justice like those mandated by the an eye for an eye principle.

I think that if the framers had such intention, they would have put more effort to state that in order to counteract the deeply rooted  sense of obligation to justice inside human beings. On the other hand as much as deeply rooted that sense of obligation to justice is, as much as it could make it hard to imagine such understanding is probable or even possible on correct grounds.  

To me it is hard to imagine it being further away from telling the government you cannot execute a killer. Instead, I see it telling the government you cannot, for example, execute someone who had failed to pay his taxes. But for the blood of another human being, how does it even occur to some here that it is imposing such a restriction on justice?

But I never really liked all the talk I see here about "love" while skipping over the question of justice.That could be behind a confusing here in seeing an intention to override justice in what is not only lacked such intention but was probably in itself intended to secure avoiding injustice and take it as being the ultimate objective in itself.  

 

"cruel and unusual" 4

First, one may notice how making a penalty imply dealing with new matter which imply facing the matter and thinking about it for the first time and that fits with how the amendment stated things in the sequence of  "bail", "fines"  then "punishments". Then one may also notice how unlike the later two words, "bail" was in the singular form. Combining the two notes above and considering the fact that there is one bail for an accused person regardless of the number of fines or punishments in question, the view per completed process rather than individual persons as a group with cut processes would seem more evident and that support the claim that the amendment is about the making of rules and not applying them (in the sense pointed out in the post below).   

"cruel and unusual" 3

So, as much as, for example, a book about the making of cars can still talk about or refer to driving them as a consequence to the ways of manufacturing them and despite that the ultimate purpose being driving them may still be described as being just about the making of cars not driving them, it appears that the eighth amendment was about the making of penalties not applying them. Therefore it does not apply on what is directly mandated by the eye for an eye principle because that comes naturally and doesn't need to be made.      

"cruel and unusual" 2

Whether people deviated from the eye for an eye principle or not, the fact remains it comes naurally from the most basic level of sensing justice inside a human being. With that in mind, one may also express the last point in the post below saying that combining and preceeding the "cruel and unusual punishment" with two things requiring a making process ("bail" and "fines") suggests strongly that it was not meant to apply on what is mandated by the eye for an eye principle because it comes naturally and requires no making.

That of course is in addition to how the use of the word "punishment" here may by itself suggest something that involve a creation process. That is because of how much that word can be used to refer to the creation of a reaction to the crime. For example googling "punishment vs. penalty" brought the Phrase " death penalty and capital punishment".

Moreover, those who oppose the death penalty on the "cruel and unusual" ground are not only opposing the equality in the process of making the injury between the dead victim and the criminal as mandated by the eye for an eye principle but also the end result of that process   

"cruel and unusual"

In case the mess of guns was not enough by itself it was combined with the mess of punishment. Starting from the constitution, the death penalty in general was not only debated but was decided for a while to be a "cruel and unusual" punishment. Are you kidding me? If you want to abolish the death penalty because of the possibility of executing an innocent person then that  is a different question. But to think that the "cruel and unusual" phrase in the constitution was intended to apply on the death penalty for a killer makes guys holding such a view here sound as if they came from a different galaxy. Not only for the question of  executing a killer but I don't think that phrase was intended to apply on the eye for an eye type of punishment in general. Unlike what some seem to take that phrase, the purpose behind it could have been to establish a line not to be crossed for punishment to actions were the just punishment is not clear rather than to replace justice. Notice how that understanding  is supported by grouping that phrase with actions related to fines and bails each of which has no clear direct just measure.

     

Yesterday I read something from a gun guy speaking about how killing someone who breaks into your home at night could leave you troubled morally for the rest of your life. I personally could kill a number of those who break into my home by choice and still not be troubled morally anywhere near as much as I would be for just being part of an acceptance by the society for the killing of one person without a choice given to him or her like that school or the movie theater shooting as part of normal life. I don't see how it is possible to tolerate in any amount the absence of a choice to that level.

Another thing I saw recently that seems like a denial to the consequences of the gun situation we live in, is the level of regulation imposed by at least one state on , believe it or not, stun guns. This also reminds me of how those firearms commercials seem to generally advertise "gun and knife" not "guns" alone as if they are in anyway comparable.      

A little clarification 3

Even without that, any contradiction between purchasing a firearm during our current time and any future laws against the spreading and empowering the capability to kill by them is limited to how the type of purchased weapon and the intended use for which it was purchased can fit any future restrictions by such laws. For example, the basic shotgun can be required to be much heavier than what it is and be the size of a washing machine and it can still be sufficient for the home defense purpose for which it was purchased. It can also be required to be made inoperable outside a very limited range of fixed location physical or wireless connection and it can still be sufficient for that purpose.  

A little clarification 2

Although I am not responsible for reckless or careless understanding to my position, here is what I said in the past and it shows how what I wrote in the post below is not something new to my position.

A little clarification

I mentioned this when I was posting in a discussion board. My general position regarding firearms ownership is about the system not the individual. It generally has nothing to do with the individual choosing to have or not have a firearm as long as the law still allows that. 

In addition, for my second amendment interpretation argument, which I have been concentrating on for sometime, I could even be the most believer in having laws allowing such ownership but still believe that the second amendment does not impose that. 

I generally don't depend on using momentums so it shouldn't be surprising that I come and go here like this. However, I intend to finish a one comprehensive submission for my second amendment interpretation argument before the supreme court rule on a case that involve taking a second look at the interpretation of that amendment, assuming, of course, that I wont miss knowing that it took such a case when it does.

The biggest ball dropping

The second amendment contains a part that requires updated evaluation to its applicability to the environment. As much as the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was invoked to reinterpret the second amendment and it did not consider that requirement as much as it failed to carry its interpretive role which was directly calling on it to keep up with the changes here. That seems to be the situation since earlier , and probably much earlier, than the second world war. During all that time people paid the price of a very outdated evaluation for the applicability of the second amendment on the newer environments with their lives.  

I probably need to explain this. The connection of Originalism to the purpose of the previous post was to show a view for what I said coming from someone sharing with the framers the absence of connections to the external factors leading to such view. 

By the way, speaking about Originalism, I want to point out that I don't see how "in God we trust" is considered to be not in contradiction with the first amendment and I have been wondering about this in my mind before I knew anything about the interpretations of other amendments with major cases.

Applying Originalism on "because"

As I stated before, I think that taking "being" as "because" misses important part in the meaning. Like any interpretation that aims to make things simpler by ,among other things, limiting itself to what is of concern, interpreting it as such in older times could have been intended to concentrate on its application at that time. Anyway, even if you understand it as "because" then originalism seems to add significantly to why the amendment made its operative clause no longer applicable. There is a much bigger reason for originalism to lead this way here than it is to  lead to  ,for example, that no banning on same sex sexual relations do not follow from the amendments on  liberty or equal protection. Unlike the development in weaponry and the difference between military machinery and that for civilians between then and now, that kind of relationship was already known at the time and something to exclude the application of the amendments on such issues could have been added if it was intended. The argument using that a punishment for such actions continued to exist before and after such amendments imply that the framers did not intend such applications also stands against itself by emphasising the existence and connection and make one wonders why such refusal did not manifest itself in the making of those amendments if the intention was to exclude such issues from the application? That may be more required especially when you have a first amendment that prevent the government from adopting any religion. So one may argue that at least the framers did not want to prevent extending the application to issues like that in the future (The issue with abortion is a different one because they wouldn't need to add exclusion for it if they believed it to be encroaching on another person.So from whatever point that become applicable after conception then abortion would mean crossing on the rights of others and no longer part of the individual rights domain to begin with). The originalism view to the second amendment,on the other hand, requires not to continue on the old evaluation for the necessity of the militia of that time in our time not only because one may assume it being the reason and originalism requires taking into account what existed or can be seen at that time but also because the dependence on that evaluation was actively stated in the first part of the amendment and the objection stated above is not applicable here.                    

Applying Originalism on the use of "being"

Yesterday I watched a part of a video that reminded me of Justice Scalia's position of limiting the interpretation of the constitution to the meaning at the time. I have not yet put much attention and thought about what should my position be or how I define it with regard to that issue of general interpretation path for the constitution. However, regardless of what my position would be ,I wonder how such interpretation view gets applied by default but stopped short of being sufficiently applied when there was an intentional pointing to the current status by using the word "being" in the second amendment and the part about the necessity of a militia was taken to always apply unconditionally? 

Shooting the message using the messenger -2

What I have been seeing here is a very strong effort and inclination to lose focus on the issue using even what was intended to bring focus on the issue for the purpose of losing that focus and treating the victims as a secondary thing used for the purpose of other things.

Of course one can always test the self by assuming the position of victims. But here is a look from another angle to check the seriousness of reactions here toward this issue. Imagine that you are running a business and someone showed you that you have been paying significant costs for a long time for no reason. What would your reaction be? The real reaction would not be just partying on the good news but it would also be accompanied by feeling toward what was lost that may have as strong if not stronger effect on you than  your feeling toward what is coming. Do you see a similar balance here? Remember that this example is about money not human life. Also remember that the example imply a loss associated only with the past not a continuous one like the issue here.

But if you think about it, my claim about the absence of serious and real reaction toward this issue fits with what I have probably stated or hinted at earlier that this issue is taken as a game in this nation. The second amendment excuse and other arguments are simply rationalizations for this psychological game here. 

Nevertheless, although I need to resist that,I have a strong desire to put off talking about that later thing or even discussing gun laws and the effect of guns and respond to opposing claims in that regard despite that I think I can make strong cases until the correct interpretation for the second amendment applied. Why? Because I think that fair and square the correct interpretation for the second amendment would lead to that it stopped supporting a gun ownership right since a long time ago regardless of any other thing. Using the other argument would make me feel as if one is obligated to recover a debt to himself that is very insignificant to a billionaire carrying it by showing a financial hardship he is suffering to that billionaire despite his right to recover that debt regardless of his financial situation.            

Shooting the message using the messenger

This is not shooting the messenger. In fact it is the opposite of it in tactic. Yet, it could serve the same purpose even better. I did not start talking about the ultimate encroachment on victim rights here in order to be used myself as a device for diverting attention from the victims and do not accept being used in that way. 

Concentration on the messenger could be a very effective way to circumvent adopting or even just listening to the message

Real listening to the message here should pass through focusing on the victims and the encroachment on their rights first. I do not accept anything that comes through treating what is equal to me as a secondary thing and do not accept invitations to such cannibalistic party. Otherwise why am I talking about this subject? To defeat my own purpose?

This post here is far from being based on mere speculations. I have what construct a more clear and coherent picture for supporting what I am complaining about here than the opposite view. I have seen very few , if any, reactions to the main issue, from both sides, that clearly conveyed to me a serious level of attention and not a game playing motivated by a psychological complex/wish.   

         

Why the comma before "being" in the Congress Version - 4

One may also be able to add that the comma is not serving generalizing being necessary to the security of a free state on a "well regulated" militia but instead it is serving generalizing the absence of dependency of being necessary to the security of a free state on a "well regulated" militia.
Unlike the first generalization above, the second generalization is created with applying the amendment and without being dependent on ignoring or circumventing the limitations of "being".