Catholics want to take away your guns

[twyacht]

Here's your context:

Ezekial 25:17 The Righteous Man.

by Samuel L. Jackson, and Mr. 1911.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz80uV4t-W0&feature=related

[Walkeraviator]

Im sorry, what were we talkin bout?  I cant get past Tabs Avatar.

[Pathfinder]

Forgot to include this little tidbit.

Remember the wacky anti-gun white guy priest inc charge of the black St. Sabina's in Chicago, you know, the one who though a local gun store owner should be killed? Well, he is in charge of a Catholic Church too, so apparently the Catholic Church hasn't improved their recruitment guidelines yet with this mope in MD.

In the Middle Ages it was customary to blame inanimate objects if they rose up and did something really stupid like kill someone. Say, like a cart rolling over a human, they burned the cart - after a trial of course.

[twyacht]

That's tight up there with dunking heretics.

If they drowned, and sank they were saved,....If they floated, and fought for air, they were of course wicked.....

A famous comedian once stated he was raised Catholic, and has the rest of his life to recover,...

Although the "penguins" at the schools, with the rulers across the knuckles,....etc,...

[fightingquaker13]

Forgot to include this little tidbit.

Remember the wacky anti-gun white guy priest inc charge of the black St. Sabina's in Chicago, you know, the one who though a local gun store owner should be killed? Well, he is in charge of a Catholic Church too, so apparently the Catholic Church hasn't improved their recruitment guidelines yet with this mope in MD.

In the Middle Ages it was customary to blame inanimate objects if they rose up and did something really stupid like kill someone. Say, like a cart rolling over a human, they burned the cart - after a trial of course.

Actually Path, you raise a very scary legal point. What you are refering to is called "The Law of Deodands" and was binding under Common Law into the 19th century. Essentially it held that inanimate objects could be held guilty of a tort (hold onto this word folks because it matters, since a tort requires "preponderance of the evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt"). The idea was that if my tree fell on your house you could sue, not me, but the tree.If it was found to be to blame than it was either burned (depriving me of wood) or given to you. The same as in the case of the cart that you mentioned. Either way I lose, but the standard of proof is lower, and  the tree or cart cant testify and I am officially not a party to the case and have no standing to speak.

Now for the punch line. fast forward to 1970 and the passage of RICO asset forfeiture laws. Fast forward again to the 1980s and the war on drugs. Until this point, RICO's forfeiture provisions were basically a dead letter, rarely used.Then under Reagan's drug war they were deployed. The feds could sieze ALL assets they thought were the product of RICO  activities and the burden of proof is on you to show they weren't. The 8th ammendment's prohibition against excessive fines didn't apply. Conviction wasn't even necessary. Why? Because it isn't YOU that is on trial, its your assets, and they have no rights. What was the basis for the Court upholding this? The "law of deodands", with several centuries of precedent in Common Law. So Eric, dont tell me nuance isn't important, because it at least let's you know HOW they get away with screwing us over.  
FQ13

[Sponsor]