[Edited thread title] Jack Jones arrested for possession of firearms at airport

[SHOWTIME15]

Not really my business as i am from the UK but surely It is outdated in regards to why it was written in the first place? It may have been an advantage 200 yrs ago, if anything it appears to be the opposite now. What advantages does it bring?

There are a lot of things in our constitution that are outdated. The problem is the amendment process is crazy difficult. You need 2/3 of both members of the House and Senate to propose an amendment to the States, and then 3/4 of the States have to ratify. The bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is the law whether people like it or not.

 

[n6249c]

He is Uber talented …

Does that mean he’ll be driving for the taxi squad?

 

[patfanken]

Been thinking on this for a while. My knee jerk reaction was to simply release him. But I'm not so sure now.

Now whatever you or I think, the legal case is the legal case. Carrying a LOADED gun (or 2 in this case), with extended clips in a carry on is simply stupid and REALLY unnecessary. As several people have pointed out, there are a few simple procedures he needed to do to pass through Logan safely and legally. (as I yell loudly in the background, UNLOAD the ****ing guns, stupid).

And as other have stated, in all likelihood on the legal side, he will end up being heavily fined, with added things like community service and a few gun safety classes thrown in. And then the NFL will add its pound of flesh. Probably 6-10 games. (Ironically it happened the day the NBA gave Jah Morante 25 games, that will cost him over a Million dollars, and multi-million more because he won't be able to Max his next contract simply because he cannot be considered for any of the all NBA teams because he will miss 25 or more games next season.)

Anyway, when he gets through ALL that, the question becomes would you bring him back? Well to me it would all come down to what Jarod thinks. IF he thinks the kid is coachable and works well with his coaches . IF he thinks the kid has been a good locker room guy that his teammates like him. Can he eventually help the team? If the answer to those 3 questions are YES, then I'd bring him back.

I'm a big believer of redemption after you have paid for your actions; This was a MASSIVELY stupid action by Jones. LIterally a life changing one. And an action he WILL pay dearly for, with fines, suspensions, and public shame....at best and add jail time at worst. But AFTER whatever penalties he has to pay... let him back...if he is remorseful. Because if there is no path to redemption then there is no reason to change one's behavior.

 

[Ring 6]

Been thinking on this for a while. My knee jerk reaction was to simply release him. But I'm not so sure now.

Now whatever you or I think, the legal case is the legal case. Carrying a LOADED gun (or 2 in this case), with extended clips in a carry on is simply stupid and REALLY unnecessary. As several people have pointed out, there are a few simple procedures he needed to do to pass through Logan safely and legally. (as I yell loudly in the background, UNLOAD the ****ing guns, stupid).

And as other have stated, in all likelihood on the legal side, he will end up being heavily fined, with added things like community service and a few gun safety classes thrown in. And then the NFL will add its pound of flesh. Probably 6-10 games. (Ironically it happened the day the NBA gave Jah Morante 25 games, that will cost him over a Million dollars, and multi-million more because he won't be able to Max his next contract simply because he cannot be considered for any of the all NBA teams because he will miss 25 or more games next season.)

Anyway, when he gets through ALL that, the question becomes would you bring him back? Well to me it would all come down to what Jarod thinks. IF he thinks the kid is coachable and works well with his coaches . IF he thinks the kid has been a good locker room guy that his teammates like him. Can he eventually help the team? If the answer to those 3 questions are YES, then I'd bring him back.

I'm a big believer of redemption after you have paid for your actions; This was a MASSIVELY stupid action by Jones. LIterally a life changing one. And an action he WILL pay dearly for, with fines, suspensions, and public shame....at best and add jail time at worst. But AFTER whatever penalties he has to pay... let him back...if he is remorseful. Because if there is no path to redemption then there is no reason to change one's behavior.

Why would the consequences ever be losing your job? I know that’s the in thing now, if you anger anyone socially they come after your job, but egg he at does this have to do with his ability to do his job? If the argument is he risked a suspension and not being available hurts the team, wouldn’t that mean cutting him hurts the team?

 

[Ring 6]

fair enough

But, yes, I do indeed that it is the TSA's responsibility to treat someone carrying a lethal weapon in his carryon as if he is a severe threat to the plane and to the passengers.

They did that by removing him from the flight.

 

[ctsports]

Speaking of George Washington...consider his most famous statement about citizens and guns: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…"

Given this statement, and those of other founding fathers, I believe he would have had a real problem with the gun lobby opposing restricting the mentally ill. Mentally ill and disciplined sound like opposites to me. I think you are right on about that. However, there is zero doubt the founding fathers supported the citizens being armed.

My favorite argument for citizens being armed (aside from all the tyrannical governments in the world feasting on its unarmed citizens) is the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott? Yes, that was about trying to curb voting rights of blacks and maintain the balance of slave states to free states. But you know what else worried the Chief Justice who wrote that **** decision?

From his published decision: Black citizenship "...would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right ... to keep and carry arms wherever they want..."

Exactly. A government that wants to control its people wants no part of its people being armed.

Dred Scott wasn't about government control. It was about white race control.

 

[Dingleberry]

Dred Scott wasn't about government control. It was about white race control.

It was both.

The Supreme Court is one third of the US government. The Dred Scott decision was made in part because the thought of blacks having the right to bear arms was unthinkable. The executive branch and more than half Congress agreed with this sentiment.

Of course it was government control. When Japanese-Americans were stripped of their property during WWII and rounded up, that was government control. ****, go back to King Philip's War back in the late-1600's right in Massachusetts. The third generation Pilgrims pushed for the local Indian tribes to disarm as a condition for treaties. This was one of the main reasons that bloody war broke out. The government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wanted to control its pesky neighbors.

I am honestly not a huge fan of guns. I own for a rainy day, so to speak. But I love the idea of an armed population. Look at the worst of the worst governments in modern world history. Disarming the population was almost always the precursor to their impending reign of terror.

I know, I know. That could never happen here. Or in the UK. Maybe.

 

[Ring 6]

It was both.

The Supreme Court is one third of the US government. The Dred Scott decision was made in part because the thought of blacks having the right to bear arms was unthinkable. The executive branch and more than half Congress agreed with this sentiment.

Of course it was government control. When Japanese-Americans were stripped of their property during WWII and rounded up, that was government control. ****, go back to King Philip's War back in the late-1600's right in Massachusetts. The third generation Pilgrims pushed for the local Indian tribes to disarm as a condition for treaties. This was one of the main reasons that bloody war broke out. The government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wanted to control its pesky neighbors.

I am honestly not a huge fan of guns. I own for a rainy day, so to speak. But I love the idea of an armed population. Look at the worst of the worst governments in modern world history. Disarming the population was almost always the precursor to their impending reign of terror.

I know, I know. That could never happen here. Or in the UK. Maybe.

Many believe our current political activity is exactly what the founding fathers feared particularly with regard to the second amendment.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Jon Jones was not “picked on” last year, he played at a near probowl caliber

Uh...no.

If that were true, Bill wouldn't have taken a CB in the 1st round. Pats DB's can't match up against the elite talent in the NFL which is why Gonzalez was taken.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Is your position really that it was OK to carry guns on the plane, and that it was carelessness than BOTH guns were loaded.

No I never stated it was OK to carry guns on a plane. No idea how you got that impression.

I said it was a mistake, carelessness, to carry guns to the airport. I doubt he intended to do it. People make mistakes.

You twist things a lot.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

I retract. One poster implied that it was OK to carry a gun on plane, and careless to have the gun loaded.

Can you quote the post? I can't find any such post. It appears as though you are twisting the discussion but simply showing the post will clear everything up.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

All this stuff can be found on google.

Do you use the Google often?

 

[Jim Beankie]

Oh, you mean there might be "mitigating circumstances"? That more might come out proving it all an innocent mistake? Or maybe he actually is schizophrenic and it really wasn't him.

Sorry, the "waiting to pass judgment" got my imagination going.

I'm not sure what I mean really... I still had a brief Charlie Brown AARRRGGGHHH moment. Could be a couple of things. One one side he's a "rich" and important dude (especially to the area) with connections who might end up with a slap on the wrist, unfair or not. On another, here's a kid who needs to get his head on straight or it can get a lot worse, but it might be too late for that wakeup call. I'm just hoping for the best eventual outcome. If that means jail time to help the kid lead a proper life even without football, then so be it. If that means a slap on the wrist but holing up in a Foxborough football monastery during and after a suspension where he meditates and studies his craft with no outside influences and becomes an All Pro and helps the Pats win a SB while doing thousands of hours of community service and talks to youth about how both not to be someone like Ja Morant and a hypocrite at the same time, that'd be cool, too. Thankfully, no one got hurt (that I know of), but those charges don't look good. Waiting until after this gets decided in court.

 

[Ring 6]

There is nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment WHEN it was written. It was a perfectly written for reality of those times and the general lack of regard the people of that era had for a centralize army controlled by the Federal Government

However, that was then and this is NOW. We live in an ENTIRELY different world where centralized armies are the norm and local "militias" are now the National Guard, and there are fully armed National, State, and Local branches of law enforcement. What was necessary in the 1787, is NOT now. I don't understand why the 2nd Amendment is so sacrosanct.

As written it is an anachronism, but its been PR'ed by the gun lobby to be seen as the part of the constitution that gives and protects our personal freedoms. People sincerely believe that if you "take away my guns, you take away my freedoms". despite all the fearmongering, there has NEVER been a big movement to take away ANYONE's guns, just to control and limit what people can own and their responsibilities . Even small things like simple background checks drive them nuts.

The NRA for most of its existence (roughly the first 100yrs) was a leader in gun safety and training. They offered training and ranges for people to learn and respect firearms. In the 50's it was a leader in supporting simple gun control and gun safety legislation. By the early 80's the NRA started to move to the right, believing that 2nd amendment rights were akin to protecting our personal freedoms.

But the big move came in 1990 when it essentially became a tax exempt 501c "foundation", and mult-millions of dollars in dark money from the gun industry flowed in and lobbied fiercely to fight to the death on even the simplest gun control protections like background checks. Now the NRA STILL acts as a good place to get training and learn gun safety and a certain percentage of money goes to that end. However its main focus is still to act a the main protection for the gun industry.

You may disagree with my opinion, but the fact are the facts. All this stuff can be found on google

Ken
Pretty much everything you said here is an opinion. You are giving your opinion on why an amendment was written, and it certainly conflicts with many other opinions.
Your opinion about the NRA is an opinion.
I’m sure you can find people on the inter webs who agree with your opinions but that doesn’t make them fact.

 

[Ross12]

I suspect that Jack Jones is probably not the only player currently employed by the Patriots who owns an unregistered firearm.

 

[patfanken]

You clearly don't have any clue why the 2nd Amendment was enacted in the first place. I suggest you read Madison's Federalist No. 46. Madison believed that the arming of citizenry helped protect the people from a tyrannical federal government as well as foreign governments. YOU may think it's outdated but that's what the amendment process is for. You can't ignore something because you feel it isn't applicable in modern times.

"Being armed is an advantage that Americans have over the people of almost any other nation."

-James Madison, Author of the Bill of Rights

Let's put some things into context here.

1. The Federalist Papers were written AFTER the constitution had been written in 1787. They were editorials trying to convince both the people and their state legislatures to ratify it.

2. The revolutionary war ended in September of 1783 with the treaty of Paris. For the next 5 or so years we were governed by the "Articles of Confederation", which actually had been the Governing force in the US since around 1777. It took a few year between the end of the actual fighting to final set the terms of the peace, the articles of confederation was what they came up with in the moment.

3. The Constitution was made necessary by the fact that the "articles of confederation" FAILED to be an effective central governmental body. States would routinely follow their own best interests in areas of foreign policy, trade, and international relations. For example Georgia unilaterally tried to pick a fight with Spain during this time and annex Florida

4. At this point in history, MOST people had a closer relationship to their STATE than to a "national" entity. People would identify as a "Massachusetts man" or a Virginia Man rather than an American

5. In most of Madison's editorial, now known as part of the "Federalist Papers" #46, he spent on how the new "constitution" would not greatly change how people related to their current state governments. It's basically pretty dense, but basically its several paragraphs that says "nothing to fear here".

6. In the final 2 paragraphs he gets to the point you made. He basically argues that a national standing army of about 25-30 thousand is nothing to be afraid of. If it ever tried to terrorize or control the states or their citizens, they would stand no chance against the half million men the state's militias would be able to bring against them. Again. "nothing to fear here". He states the Militia's ultimately beat a standing army during the Revolution, they would easily beat a Federal standing army too if it were necessary. So it's OK to have a Federal standing army.

7. Your Madison quote "Being armed is an advantage that Americans have over the people of almost any other nation." is slightly inaccurate taken out of context and misleading. This is the full sentence

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed,"

In this paragraph the context is he is STILL trying to sell the idea of what will be a much stronger federal government. A concept he knows people are very suspicious of. A People who relate more to their state than their federal government. And he does it by minimizing the impact of such a government

First you change the first word of the sentence and THEN you conveniently forget to add the 2nd half. (or maybe this is what you copied from some web site.) The 2nd part is very important because Madison makes CLEAR that value of being armed is NOT about individuals having guns, but rather because they are "Attached, and by which militia officers are appointed".

Meaning that being armed and directed by an organized state sponsored militia under the control of appointed officers. It is NOT about individual gun rights, but the value of having people with guns available to be put in ORGANIZED responsible militias. Just like the 2nd amendment reads.

Now about 40 years ago I taught an AP history course on the Federalist Papers. Granted I forgot 99% of it, but the internet is a wonderful thing. If you want to read the whole editorial click below, and no there will be no test or college credit.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46

avalon.law.yale.edu

 

[Patsgofor4]

I’m just going to quickly check on the latest news in the Jack Jones thread…..

 

[crawhammer]

In a discussion questioning how stupid someone could be to not know you can’t bring a gun on a plane you refer to a black man with a term that at least over the last couple of years has universally become known to be racist.
Of course you are a racist or you wouldn’t use that term in 2023.

Seriously? Only a black man can be a thug?? And I'm the racist? Show me from anywhere the definition of a thug that reads "a black man." That's in your heart and your mind, not mine. To me a thug is a person of any race with nefarious intent and conduct. For you seemingly that could only mean a black man, which ironically for you, sounds like a racist point of view. Nice job dipshit.

Yes.

Ok Jackass. You apparently are another closet racist who believes only thugs can be black men. ****ing hypocrite, stick to subject next time.

 

[patfanken]

Ken
Pretty much everything you said here is an opinion. You are giving your opinion on why an amendment was written, and it certainly conflicts with many other opinions.
Your opinion about the NRA is an opinion.
I’m sure you can find people on the inter webs who agree with your opinions but that doesn’t make them fact.

Interesting, Andy that you post this because there's nothing I disagree with. But timing is sometimes funny.

A poster on the opposite side of my opinion posted a quote from one of Madison's editorials in the Federalist papers to rebut something I said. Well 40 years ago I taught an AP history class on the Federalist Papers, of which I have almost zero memory of, but it DID spark my curiosity and the internet is a wonderful thing.

So I looked up the specific paper and read it again. It's pretty dense and too a half hour to get through. It turned out my rebutter only used half the sentence and changed a word, but the end result was much to my surprise the competed sentence actually supported MY position, which was and still is that first clause of the 2nd amendment isn't about "individual" gun rights in the 21st century, but the value of having an armed citizenry who will be available to called up into organized and regulated State militias run by "appointed officers".

Again within the context of the times, it made perfect sense, but not now. Well I won't bore you further, if you want "take the class" its in the thread.

 

[Froob]

At the time the 2A was written, well-regulated did not mean "Having Govt Oversight". It meant "Well-Maintained" or "in good working order". The reason they wanted the Militia (Aka people from 18-45) to keep their equipment well maintained is because of the issue they had at the start of the Revolution. Fully 30% of the the firearms that people showed up with were in such bad condition that they couldn't be fired safely. The other issue that they had was that they had some 10-12 different calibers of musket ball. This causes an issue in that, if someone ran out, they couldn't just turn to their fellow soldier and ask for more. Nor could they pick up another musket if theirs became damaged because there was no guarantee that their shot would work in it.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
View attachment 51464

More reason for it to be re-written in a way that's better indicative of the time.