The beezzer's Court. On trial, The 2nd Amendment

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Hey, Intrepid! You still around? (or aboot? Since you're Canadian
)

Just an idea.

We get a team of people on defense, and a team for prosecution, but in the end, ATS does one of their polls for a yay or nay vote on their presentations?

Whatdoyathink?


If you go with this format it will be a kangaroo court,

Without even reading the arguments both sides will automatically vote for their preconceived ideas and since most of the site is American and it will mainly be Americans who are interested I can tell you now 90% will vote the defence won.

I think get 10 volunteers for jury duty and both the prosecution and defence can check their post history to see if they are in fact impartial or at least not rabid one way or the other.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Quite true. Just looking at different options. T'is why I want international participation as well, The "future" of other countries may rest on the verdict.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I'll volunteer for jury duty again.

If that is how it ends up working out.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Thank you! Prospective juror #2!



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by NightFlight
How will the "court" take into account that Newtown was a false flag psy-ops operation? Or, is that one of the premises you wish to prove or disprove?

If it is indeed the second amendment that is on trial, will all tragic shootings be taken into account? With what premise will you charge the court?


I wish the court to decide the validity of the 2nd Amendment.

Simply put.


We hold this truth to be self-evident, and historically substantiated time and time again, that all governments become corrupted after a time. We the people of the United States must have the right to defend ourselves when the time comes that our government will act against the people, instead of for the people.

It is not only the Right of every American citizen to arm themselves against such an event, it is their obligation to arm themselves to the teeth in order to remind the holders of public office that their authority is not god-given, but people-given, and that they can be removed when civilized debate no longer inspires them to represent the people.

S&F Beeze-buddy.
edit on 1/11/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Cmon guys, play properly

This isnt the thread to put forward arguments, there is plenty of those.

The idea of the thread is to organise a structured platform for people of both sides to put forward an argument.

So Jigger can we put you down for the defence



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Cmon guys, play properly

This isnt the thread to put forward arguments, there is plenty of those.

The idea of the thread is to organise a structured platform for people of both sides to put forward an argument.

So Jigger can we put you down for the defence


Oops! Sorry, I guess I, um, jumped the gun there.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
So Beez how stands things?

Whats the format gonna be?

Im assume your working on it now


May I approach the bench and submit my ideas?
Thank you your honor

Ok get X people acting as prosecution and defence, maybe 3 each and 10 jurors, witnesses are called in the form of youtube vids totalling no more than 10 min.

Start a new thread and the OP sets the topic and format, we're arguing for or against the 2nd amendment and nothing else.
Each "lawyer" puts forth their case, in turn. Get a mod involved to delete any comments that arent relevant to the debate and to remove posts from people who arent involved,

After each has had their say they can post their vids, after the vids each "Lawyer can put forth a final closing argument. After which the jury deliver their verdict, In the likely case of a tie you will decide the most convincing argument, trying to be as impartial as possible of course


Maybe if we did something like this it may take some of the fire out of the argument, hopefully every 2nd thread wont be gun related and ATS can go back to its usually craziness. I know Im being overly optomistic in that hope but we can dream.

So you gonna make this happen or what?
How the numbers looking for each side?

If not mistaken theres wrabbit, Jigger and tdawg for the defence
So far me and Superman for the prosecution (As if a side with superman can lose)

Also 2 jury members

Anyone else wanna play?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 




Anyone else wanna play?

I'll play.

2nd



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I would like to participate as well but my opinons are very biased.
Beezzer,I will let you decide what I can do.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Sorry, I meant that I would be a jury member as I don't know nearly enough to be able to either be for or against it, plus I'm not a US citizen.
I would be more than happy to play an impartial juror though



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GArnold

"Half of all the mass shootings in the history of the United States have occurred since the assault gun ban expired in 2005."
Bill Clinton


I see what you did there and it was sneaky.

The assault weapons ban was from 94 to 04. A 10 year ban. You forgot to leave out that little tidbit.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 




Anyone else wanna play?

I'll play.

2nd


How would you like to participate?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
I would like to participate as well but my opinons are very biased.
Beezzer,I will let you decide what I can do.


This pretty much speaks for me too Beezer. I'll participate, but may get banned, if not in a role that keeps me in the background. I've got 62 years of Patriotic blood flowing through my veins.

Des



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


reply to post by mamabeth
 


Ladies, I always benefit from your insight and wisdom. However you wish to participate is fine with me. As members of the jury or as members of the Defense team.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 




Anyone else wanna play?

I'll play.

2nd


How would you like to participate?


Anything is fine.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Juror #3 then!


Thanks for participating.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


How impartial is this going to be, Beezzer?'







Let me make a suggestion. Before ANYONE wants to the Judge the Second Amendment, they read the The Federalist Papers. It has to be part of the evidence. Exhibit B.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Well...I've already made popcorn. So, stick me in the Jury...I'll share of course...




Des



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


I am biased.

But if you need that "guy" who screams out something damning in the courtroom, before he gets kicked out, that's me !







top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join