View Full Version : You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected
flickad
11-12-2008, 06:24 AM
^
Cute ;).
ArmySGT.
11-12-2008, 04:05 PM
Problem is states' rights to make their own gun laws and the lobbying that make them hesitant to make responsible laws. And the lobbying that also makes the Fed hesitant too. This is beyond the Constitution and its amendments which does not limit 'arms' ownership and doesn't even define 'militias'. But it only implies ,at best, that individual owners should not have more powerful weapons than official militias and the military, and I suppose police which must be implied someplace in there.
There is no legal standing for a States Rights issue to prohibit a firearm or certain type of firearm. The Tenth Amendment makes the Second an exclusive province of the People. Not any State or even the Federal Government.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Founding Fathers intended for the martial arms to remain in the hands of the Citizenry, with full (experiential) knowledge of the dangers of keeping around a standing professional army.
ArmySGT.
11-12-2008, 04:07 PM
This is what I have heard, not being a lawyer but only reading a law book on torts....
Actually you have that right when you are chased down and cannot escape. The courts would rather you try to avoid/escape the situation--the reasonable man argument. If you are in, eg, an attempted mugging and you slug, cut, shoot the perpetrator without attempting to escape, you ae in legal jeopardy. To an extent, if you are confronted in your residence (permanent or temporary) you have a right to disarm/disable the perp. That is, you did until some naive courts decided that you could be sued in a civil court for damages to the perp.
Hoping some lawyer here will clarify this....
I am not a Lawyer but, I do feel lucky I live in a "Castle Doctrine" State, and cannot be sued by a criminal who is injured by myself or on my property while performing criminal acts. Unlike NY State with a few rather infamous cases of the latter.
ArmySGT.
11-12-2008, 04:16 PM
are gun ppl proposing we be allwed ak-47 and m-16???
That is not a rhetorical question. Im serious. Cuz I was not aware of it.
Yes.
Yes, I do. My "reasonable restrictions" would be safety education Starting from the first grade on (age appropriate); and such things as are intended to damage without necessity of direction. i.e. explosives, grenades, nuclear weapons............... ummmmmmmm with the exception of nukes; these can be purchased with a permit and the $200 tax stamp. Yes Virginia you too can buy a hand grenade.
My point is this. The founding fathers were against a standing professional Army. Having experienced the British Army before Concord and Lexington; the authors of the Constitution desired that the Arms should be in the hands of the People. This is one of the Checks and Balances written into the Constitution to directly prevent tyranny.
ArmySGT.
11-12-2008, 04:22 PM
Aren't most murders committed impulsively, in the heat of some strong emotion?
Unlikely, and in such instances mental illness is a contributing factor.
This is the defense for the "crime of passion" such as a spouse catches his/her cheating and in bed with the lover, then kills them both. In some States this is considered justifiable.
hockeybobby
11-12-2008, 05:24 PM
My point is this. The founding fathers were against a standing professional Army. Having experienced the British Army before Concord and Lexington; the authors of the Constitution desired that the Arms should be in the hands of the People. This is one of the Checks and Balances written into the Constitution to directly prevent tyranny.
But don't you guys have, like, a huge standing army? /:O
ArmySGT.
11-12-2008, 05:43 PM
But don't you guys have, like, a huge standing army? /:O
Yes, we do. Something our Founders warned us against. It was created in response to the problems associated with calling up the State militia for the Spanish American War, and WW 1.
Nautilus
11-12-2008, 06:56 PM
flickad - the hardest things for americans to do is think about what they look like from the outside because:
1) they generally don't care; and
2) shoot first, ask questions later
(think about the pussies, dicks and assholes scene from Team America)
i grew up in a country where not even the cops were armed. i live in a country now where there has been one massacre in my lifetime. the country i grew up in had one notorious gun massacre in its history - ONE family of 5 died. a drive-by shooting is still news, and not par for the course.
i'm not going to try and convert people who cling to a part of their constitution as an excuse to do something that just doesn't work.
the thinking perpetuates itself and the fear cycle continues. no answer though. just natural selection. hand out guns at birth and go from there.
Narcissus
11-12-2008, 08:06 PM
flickad - the hardest things for americans to do is think about what they look like from the outside because:
1) they generally don't care; and
2) shoot first, ask questions later
(think about the pussies, dicks and assholes scene from Team America)
No need to look further than an overly simplistic stereotype when said stereotype fits your agenda. ;)
i grew up in a country where not even the cops were armed.
Stop! ... Stop!! ... Stop, or I'll yell stop again! :D
the thinking perpetuates itself and the fear cycle continues. no answer though. just natural selection. hand out guns at birth and go from there.
Yes, very astute. The 'fear cycle' that continues on and on ...
Narcissus
Nautilus
11-12-2008, 10:39 PM
No need to look further than an overly simplistic stereotype when said stereotype fits your agenda. ;)
it's simplistic america that 'clings to their guns'
flickad
11-13-2008, 02:13 AM
This is what I have heard, not being a lawyer but only reading a law book on torts....
Actually you have that right when you are chased down and cannot escape. The courts would rather you try to avoid/escape the situation--the reasonable man argument. If you are in, eg, an attempted mugging and you slug, cut, shoot the perpetrator without attempting to escape, you ae in legal jeopardy. To an extent, if you are confronted in your residence (permanent or temporary) you have a right to disarm/disable the perp. That is, you did until some naive courts decided that you could be sued in a civil court for damages to the perp.
Hoping some lawyer here will clarify this....
Just finished my LLB today (yay!!) but my knowledge of US law is very limited. I can tell you that here the defence of self-defence varies between states and that many provisions do include a reasonable proportionality requirement.
Melonie
11-13-2008, 04:23 AM
^^^ well, in the state of New York there have been several well publicized cases where criminals attempted to rob / threaten homeowners ... resulting in the criminals being injured by the homeowners and thus apprehended ... resulting in lawsuits against the homeowners by the criminals ... resulting in juries awarding greater amounts in 'damages' to the criminal than if the homeowner had simply let the criminal rob them in the first place !
flickad
11-13-2008, 05:02 AM
^^^ well, in the state of New York there have been several well publicized cases where criminals attempted to rob / threaten homeowners ... resulting in the criminals being injured by the homeowners and thus apprehended ... resulting in lawsuits against the homeowners by the criminals ... resulting in juries awarding greater amounts in 'damages' to the criminal than if the homeowner had simply let the criminal rob them in the first place !
I would say that sounds counter-intuitive, but I guess it depends on how much damage was done in the name of defence of property. Vigilante justice and self-defence aren't the same thing.
Miss_Luscious
11-13-2008, 05:47 AM
^^Agreed. There was a guy who saw his neighbor's house being robbed and he went outside and killed the robbers even after the 911 operator told him not to. He was subsequently cleared. I don't know how that seems fair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy
flickad
11-13-2008, 07:35 AM
^
Texas allows the use of deadly force to protect property? Nice to know they have their priorities straight.
Miss_Luscious
11-13-2008, 07:40 AM
Texas is pretty ass backwards.
threlayer
11-13-2008, 07:45 AM
Texas allows the use of deadly force to protect property? Nice to know they have their priorities straight.
That is colloquilly known as the "shoot your neighbor" law.
But, then, in Texas is there anything that is not colloquil?
threlayer
11-13-2008, 08:01 AM
There is no legal standing for a States Rights issue to prohibit a firearm or certain type of firearm. The Tenth Amendment makes the Second an exclusive province of the People. Not any State or even the Federal Government.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Founding Fathers intended for the martial arms to remain in the hands of the Citizenry, with full (experiential) knowledge of the dangers of keeping around a standing professional army.
You bring up a good point about the Twelfth. We should remember, though, that when the Founding Fathers' peers wanted an army for the War of Independence, they only found it among the citizenry, as they had no significant standing army in the times when they really needed one. Good thing that everyone had arms. Further, there was no supermarket/butcher shop infrastructure, so hunting was very, very common, even among the gentry. With that background, we do not know what they actually intended in times when hunting was not necessary and we would have standing militias in every state.
So there's a lot more to it if we recall the times, which we need to do.... It's sort of like the Jewish religious admonition not to eat pork, when at the time it was a very foul product indeed. Now that its avoidance is not necessary for health reasons, that admonition has become essentially only a tradition. Also recall the times when the founding fathers were all wealthy landowners, many of whom were very dependent on slavery, a practice which, for 70 years, led to no chief executive willing to make a committment to human rights for them. So was slavery their intent, which we should still uphold? Well, that's debatable.
Eric Stoner
11-13-2008, 09:40 AM
^^^ well, in the state of New York there have been several well publicized cases where criminals attempted to rob / threaten homeowners ... resulting in the criminals being injured by the homeowners and thus apprehended ... resulting in lawsuits against the homeowners by the criminals ... resulting in juries awarding greater amounts in 'damages' to the criminal than if the homeowner had simply let the criminal rob them in the first place !
Lawsuits like this are mostly a myth. Yes, there have been a few where criminals got shot or injured by homeowners defending themselves and their property. And yes, a few resulted in jury awards to the criminals almost all of which were overturned on appeal.
However, there have been a greater number of suits against cities and municalities for the actions of their police usually based on unarmed criminals getting shot. Most are dismissed. Some are settled and go to trial and a few result in jury awards.
Eric Stoner
11-13-2008, 09:42 AM
^
Texas allows the use of deadly force to protect property? Nice to know they have their priorities straight.
What's wrong with that ? What are Texans supposed to do ? Just hand over their property and say : " Thanks for coming. Have a nice day. " ?
threlayer
11-13-2008, 01:06 PM
What's wrong with that ? What are Texans supposed to do ? Just hand over their property and say : " Thanks for coming. Have a nice day. " ?
So if I want to shoot someone for stealing my pumpkin jack-o-lantern which I paid $3 and two hours carving out, this would be OK? They shoot horse thieves, don't they? If I were going to shoot someone, it wouldnt be over anything petty. Now if they were going to steal my 1975 Matador, that would be another story! :)
bem401
11-13-2008, 01:14 PM
What's wrong with that ? What are Texans supposed to do ? Just hand over their property and say : " Thanks for coming. Have a nice day. " ?
Well, maybe some harsh language would work.
flickad
11-14-2008, 02:49 AM
What's wrong with that ? What are Texans supposed to do ? Just hand over their property and say : " Thanks for coming. Have a nice day. " ?
Of course not, but it seems quite disproportionate to shoot someone for stealing. It's like a de-facto death penalty for theft, which is all kinds of wrong.
The sensible response to a burglary, to me, would seem to be calling the police.
flickad
11-14-2008, 02:52 AM
So if I want to shoot someone for stealing my pumpkin jack-o-lantern which I paid $3 and two hours carving out, this would be OK? They shoot horse thieves, don't they? If I were going to shoot someone, it wouldnt be over anything petty. Now if they were going to steal my 1975 Matador, that would be another story! :)
Jeez, if only I'd lived in Texas, it would have been just fine and dandy for me to stab my brother to stop him eating my Lean Cuisines ::) .
Eric Stoner
11-14-2008, 11:01 AM
Of course not, but it seems quite disproportionate to shoot someone for stealing. It's like a de-facto death penalty for theft, which is all kinds of wrong.
The sensible response to a burglary, to me, would seem to be calling the police.
Yeah and while you're waitng for them to finish their coffee and doughnuts and come on over; what are you supposed to do ? I'm not advocating shooting an unarmed burglar but I'd certainly hold one at gunpoint until the cops got there and if he was armed; I'd make sure to shoot first.
flickad
11-14-2008, 11:11 AM
Yeah and while you're waitng for them to finish their coffee and doughnuts and come on over; what are you supposed to do ? I'm not advocating shooting an unarmed burglar but I'd certainly hold one at gunpoint until the cops got there and if he was armed; I'd make sure to shoot first.
I think that's disproportionate. Life has a higher value than property. I think a citizen's arrest might be appropriate, but certainly not killing the offender. As I've said, this amounts to a de facto death penalty for theft, and in that respect, is not unlike the regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia (where punishment for theft is commonly mutilation), which most US citizens have no problem criticising.
LizardQueen
11-14-2008, 11:26 AM
The only thing about property is that it's hard to know whether someone is armed and whether they broke into your house to steal your TV or rape your wife or who knows what. I have to say that if I did happen to have a gun and if I happened to hear someone in my house at night, I could see myself shooting. I'd be making a hasty decision out of fear at the very least.
threlayer
11-14-2008, 01:07 PM
Jeez, if only I'd lived in Texas, it would have been just fine and dandy for me to stab my brother to stop him eating my Lean Cuisines ::) .
Maybe so. But only if he had broken into your house to steal, not just visit. Gotta be careful there.
Eric Stoner
11-14-2008, 02:40 PM
I think that's disproportionate. Life has a higher value than property. I think a citizen's arrest might be appropriate, but certainly not killing the offender. As I've said, this amounts to a de facto death penalty for theft, and in that respect, is not unlike the regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia (where punishment for theft is commonly mutilation), which most US citizens have no problem criticising.
I know Australia has a low crime rate. For all I know, maybe you guys don't lock your doors as in SOME parts of Canada. But if some creep breaks into my house ,first he's going to have to deal with my dog who's been trained to deal with intruders "with extreme prejudice". Then I'm going to call off my dog and crack his head open with a baseball bat. In America we call that " a strong demonstration of private property rights. " And then I'll let the cops deal with what's left of him. And I'll sleep like a baby.
flickad
11-14-2008, 08:03 PM
^
Why do you need to crack someone's head open if your dog's happy to bail them up 'til the cops get there?
threlayer
11-16-2008, 06:21 AM
so his dog doesn't get a sore throat
bem401
11-16-2008, 11:14 AM
I'm with Eric on this one. if I catch an intruder in my house, I will do my best to see he leaves in a body bag.
Eric Stoner
11-17-2008, 10:39 AM
so his dog doesn't get a sore throat
I don't mind the personal insults. And I don't mind insults directed at my dog; "Casey".
But Casey does mind and asked me to type the following response : " Arf; grrrr; yip; yip; bark; grrrr ; bark, bark; yelp." I don't have time to translate but trust me, he got even.
Eric Stoner
11-17-2008, 10:41 AM
^
Why do you need to crack someone's head open if your dog's happy to bail them up 'til the cops get there?
My dog is trained to go for the groin. It forces the intruder to lower his hands and arms giving me a free swing at their head. Fortunately, I've never had to do it for real. He's also trained NOT to bark at intruders. We don't want to ruin the "surprise".
threlayer
11-17-2008, 10:42 AM
I've had an intruder in my house, with a loaded weapon pointing at a guest, but not to rob, just to intimidate. I was not in the immediate area, so I called the cops. They took away all his guns but didn't even arrest him for drunk driving or tresspassing or menacing. I had to get the DA's involved because that guy had friends in the cops clique. Still nothing else happened to him; he didn't even get arraigned. Creeps! If he would have fired, someone would have gotten hurt. And I would have clubbed him with my crowbar as he left the house, and he would have been skull-crushed dead (with no one left to sue me). I am far from violent, but I will not let friends be hurt in my house.
Lucy in the Sky
11-17-2008, 12:33 PM
I am awaiting the crime stats for the next year regarding gun violence and hate crimes- specifically against Black and Latino persons. My guess is that there will be a sharp spike in both that correlates exactly with the recent rise in gun sales.
Melonie
11-17-2008, 03:01 PM
^^^ I'll take that bet ... given that the vast majority of gun crimes against black and latino persons are perped by other black or latino persons ... whereas the vast majority of recent gun sales / registrations have been to suburban and rural white persons.
flickad
11-17-2008, 08:19 PM
My dog is trained to go for the groin. It forces the intruder to lower his hands and arms giving me a free swing at their head. Fortunately, I've never had to do it for real. He's also trained NOT to bark at intruders. We don't want to ruin the "surprise".
What kind of dog is he?
Lucy in the Sky
11-17-2008, 09:24 PM
^^^ I'll take that bet ... given that the vast majority of gun crimes against black and latino persons are perped by other black or latino persons ... whereas the vast majority of recent gun sales / registrations have been to suburban and rural white persons.
Either you didn't understand my comment or maybe I wasn't clear. I meant I am interested is seeing future stats of gun violence connected to hate crimes. Specifically if they rise will it correlate with the rise in gun sales or not.
Melonie
11-18-2008, 04:13 AM
^^^ Yes this was my understanding. My point was that an increase in registered, legal gun purchases by people who are predominantly white and suburban doesn't necessarily correlate with the guns involved in crimes against black or latino victims ... because the latter primarily occurs in large cities, and the latter primarily involves the use of non-registered, illegal guns. The legal gun sales statistic does NOT measure an increase in the supply of non-registered, illegal guns ( for some reason the drug importers, transnational gangs etc. don't keep statistics on their illegal gun shipments across the Mexican border ).
doc-catfish
11-18-2008, 09:25 AM
Either you didn't understand my comment or maybe I wasn't clear. I meant I am interested is seeing future stats of gun violence connected to hate crimes. Specifically if they rise will it correlate with the rise in gun sales or not.
Why not just go find past stats? It not as if those racist white folks buying guns don't have guns already. You'd think they'd have been doing all those hate crimes while the GOP was in charge.
Regardless of what happens, I'm sure folks on both sides of this issue will out of context the results to make the statistics look like they say something that they don't.
Narcissus
11-18-2008, 09:55 AM
Regardless of what happens, I'm sure folks on both sides of this issue will out of context the results to make the statistics look like they say something that they don't.
You didn't actually expect anything different from people with strong political views, did you? ;)
Narcissus
Eric Stoner
11-18-2008, 11:15 AM
What kind of dog is he?
He's 3/4 German Shepherd with 1/4 Labrador.
Lucy in the Sky
11-18-2008, 12:17 PM
^^^ Yes this was my understanding. My point was that an increase in registered, legal gun purchases by people who are predominantly white and suburban doesn't necessarily correlate with the guns involved in crimes against black or latino victims ... because the latter primarily occurs in large cities, and the latter primarily involves the use of non-registered, illegal guns. The legal gun sales statistic does NOT measure an increase in the supply of non-registered, illegal guns ( for some reason the drug importers, transnational gangs etc. don't keep statistics on their illegal gun shipments across the Mexican border ).
I know all that other stuff already. What I am getting at is that I am interested to see if any of that changes or not in the short term in connection with the rise in gun sales. I am not saying it will or won't- I'm just curious to see what if anything happens.
Why not just go find past stats? It not as if those racist white folks buying guns don't have guns already. You'd think they'd have been doing all those hate crimes while the GOP was in charge.
Because I am curious about the stats from the election on not prior. I want to see if it make a difference or not.
I know that since the GOP and Minutemen groups publicly went after immigration that hate crimes against Latinos has increased dramatically so I am curious to see if anything similar happens in correlation to this spike in gun sales or not.
bem401
11-18-2008, 12:26 PM
I know that since the GOP and Minutemen groups publicly went after immigration that hate crimes against Latinos has increased dramatically so I am curious to see if anything similar happens in correlation to this spike in gun sales or not.
Please provide statistical proof of this dramatic increase in hate crimes against Latinos, especially crimes involving weapons.
Please note that arresting, detaining, and deporting an illegal alien does not constitute a hate crime.
What about providing some statistics comparing illegal aliens as the perpetrators of crimes vs. being the victims of crimes?
Lucy in the Sky
11-18-2008, 12:33 PM
Please provide statistical proof of this dramatic increase in hate crimes against Latinos, especially crimes involving weapons.
Please note that arresting, detaining, and deporting an illegal alien does not constitute a hate crime.
I don't normally respond to you due to a VERY, VERY deep and severe dislike of your personality and opinions but I will make an exception this time because it is regarding a serious and factual issue rather than opinions.
This should get you started. It includes FBI stats as well as stats from the very well respected Southern Poverty Law Center
bem401
11-18-2008, 01:17 PM
I don't normally respond to you due to a VERY, VERY deep and severe dislike of your personality and opinions but I will make an exception this time because it is regarding a serious and factual issue rather than opinions.
This should get you started. It includes FBI stats as well as stats from the very well respected Southern Poverty Law Center
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/10/29/anti-latino-hate-crimes-rise-for-fourth-year/
The last paragraph of your article indicates all races are approximately equally victimized by hate crimes on a per capita basis, which is kind of what I would have expected.
Without going too deeply into the topic, a 10% increase over 4 years ( 2.5% per year) in Hispanic victims of hates crimes coming when the population of Hispanics is increasing at a rate around 5% per year means that the average Hispanic is becoming less and less likely individually to be a victim of a hate crime. In other words, I would argue that things aren't getting worse for the average Hispanic person regarding hate crimes.
As regards the guns laws, I think that those predisposed to violent hate crimes are not going to be more likely to commit them because guns are more readily available. They probably already have guns, legal or not.
Lucy in the Sky
11-18-2008, 05:14 PM
a 10% increase over 4 years
Incorrect. Read it again. It's 40% not 10%. Big difference.
FBI stats show this started in 2003 which correlates almost exactly to the GOP lead push back on illegal immigration. Is that just a coincidence? Personally I think not.
I’m just wondering if the future will show a similar result related to these gun sales. Who knows if it will or won’t. It just crossed my mind as a possibility.
flickad
11-18-2008, 08:30 PM
He's 3/4 German Shepherd with 1/4 Labrador.
Intelligent mix.
Eric Stoner
11-19-2008, 08:36 AM
Intelligent mix.
Valedictorian of his obedience school class and made the Dean's List at guard school.