Optional/ZZZZzzzzzz's rule number one: NEVER EVER admit being wrong no matter how obvious it is to everyone else.
Exactly the same as how you control the improper use of fists or kitchen knives or vehicles - laws against murder, wounding, assault, threats of violence etc. It is already illegal to harm or kill people with any weapons, your bare fists, or things like your vehicle. No further laws are necessary to punish harming or killing people with a gun, any more than they are necessary to punish harming or killing people with a car.
No - he only commuted the sentence, he didn't pardon it. Guy is still an ex-con, no compensation from the state, no right to see his kid etc.
The guy having had no criminal record is immaterial to his conviction. His case was not overturned, the governor did not pardon him. He remains guilty of his crime, his sentenced was commuted. Therefore, he is just another ex-con angry at the system that found him guilty and punished him. So who does he blame? Not himself, obviously. But was he guilty of a crime? Yes, the governor did not dispute that. So he was a criminal, who got caught and punished, and that is a criminal record that he now has, and will continue to have until there is some cause to expunge his record. Lots of people who think laws are wrong, when they get busted for their violation, go all "Libertarian" on the process, they get bent out of shape. Did this guy try to cop to a lessor plea? Did this guy appear belligerent at the trial? Did the lawyer try to argue against the law, rather than the guy being not guilty of breaking the law? Remember, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Without all the facts of the case, all that can be gleaned is that he was found guilty of a crime, sentenced by a judge to 7 years, and then the sentence was commuted to time served. His having no criminal record is not material to the issues at hand, which makes the article such a joke...as the writer of the article is biased towards making people feel sympathetic to this guy. Look, let me ask a serious question. If this guys name had been Allah Akbar and he was dressed in full on Muslim garb when this all went down, he had the same story, same family situation, same cops, etc. do you think on principle that there would by sympathy for his situation? Unlikely, though the ACLU might have gotten involved, which they might have done in the beginning if his civil liberties were actually violated. Nope, the guy is an ex convict with a commuted sentence, now on a mission...but the article was a joke, as it was including facts that were not pertinent to the crime at hand.
All undisputed, mentioning it over and over doesn't make you look any smarter. Not unlike your silly argument. You claimed the articles statement that he had no PRIOR criminal record was false. You were wrong. End of story.
regardless of the guy's name, if he were only moving his things to his new home and had properly and legally housed and locked his unloaded guns (which were legally purchased and registered in another state) and had to go through this - and didnt get proper due process then yes, i'd back him up. please show me one ACLU case where they defended someone's right to bear arms.
Try keeping up with the news... http://www.aclunv.org/aclu-nevada-supports-individual’s-right-bear-arms http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/01/when-the-aclu-d.html