[Primateus]

Y'know, I'm beginning to think there might be a psychological, perhaps even evolutionary, reason behind this idea that "we need guns to shoot homeinvaders". I'm thinking a kind of "alpha/beta" person kind of mentality. That you're somehow seen as weak if you don't a gun to "defend" yourself with.

Oh, and this idea that when/if the economy collapses it's going to be anarchy. I think it was in this very thread that I said I believed that the people who are shouting that we need guns to protect ourselves against that sort of thing are the very same people who are going to cause it.

Just because the economy/government collapses we need not have anarchy and riots in the streets, we need not have people shooting wildly at each other. This is a PURELY hypothetical situation given that it is not something we know will happen. But I definitely believe that if people, like those doomsday preppers, cling to the mentality that we need guns because they're afraid that this hypothetical scenario will happen, then I'm afraid that these people are all the more likely to make it happen!

It sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your fear that it MIGHT happen is the reason it WILL happen.

At least that's what I think.

[worry]

Protecting the household:
http://nbclatino.com...way-police-say/

[Silencer]

Quote

Sailors’ lawyer says his client is a Vietnam veteran with no prior criminal history and thought he and his wife were about to be victims of a home invasion. “You have to understand this is a 69-year-old man who is a military veteran who has been honorably discharged,” Michael Puglise says. “He dedicated his life to community service, specifically the Christian Lay Ministry in Latin America.”

...and this excuses or lessens the fact that the man ran outside his house, when a car pulled up in his driveway - nobody got out yet - screaming at them to get off the property. When the car reversed (to do just that), and the driver wound down the window (apparently to apologize and say they weren't doing anything wrong) the old guy shot the driver in the head?


...OK, so now in America it is too dangerous to pull into the wrong driveway - even probably just to turn around because you missed your intended turn/destination - because people might come out of their house to shoot you in "defence of their property"!??!?!?

As someone who has had a crazy old man get pissed off and come out of his and at him for using his driveway as a turning bay (and this is when I was learning to drive, ffs), this one kinda creeps me out. Thank God I don't live in the States. And may the courts over there please make an example of this old man - at the very least to make it clear that you can't shoot people in your driveway without some OVERT, OBVIOUS action that is a direct threat to your and yours?

[worry]

Well his lawyer can only give him the best defense possible, he can't work miracles. It's his job to say stuff like that.

Besides that though, yah. People here have truly abysmal notions of what constitutes "tresspassing" and what they should be able to do about it. Same old cowboy nonsense, combined with a misunderstanding of the law (though in some states these days, that misunderstanding is becoming a rally point to change the laws, hence Stand Your Ground and such). But hey, the fact that he's actually being investigated for a crime puts Georgia several steps ahead of Florida.

[worry]

Also, you will see it time and time again here during this debate (among too many others), and I think lots of other countries probably do this too: the division of people into the simple binary "criminals" and "non-criminals" as if they're states of being. Sickening enough as is, when you combine it with that trespassing stuff or any other cowboy/rugged individualist claptrap, it's basically a lit fuse.

[Obdigore]

Silencer, on 30 January 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

Quote

Sailors’ lawyer says his client is a Vietnam veteran with no prior criminal history and thought he and his wife were about to be victims of a home invasion. “You have to understand this is a 69-year-old man who is a military veteran who has been honorably discharged,” Michael Puglise says. “He dedicated his life to community service, specifically the Christian Lay Ministry in Latin America.”

...and this excuses or lessens the fact that the man ran outside his house, when a car pulled up in his driveway - nobody got out yet - screaming at them to get off the property. When the car reversed (to do just that), and the driver wound down the window (apparently to apologize and say they weren't doing anything wrong) the old guy shot the driver in the head?


...OK, so now in America it is too dangerous to pull into the wrong driveway - even probably just to turn around because you missed your intended turn/destination - because people might come out of their house to shoot you in "defence of their property"!??!?!?

As someone who has had a crazy old man get pissed off and come out of his and at him for using his driveway as a turning bay (and this is when I was learning to drive, ffs), this one kinda creeps me out. Thank God I don't live in the States. And may the courts over there please make an example of this old man - at the very least to make it clear that you can't shoot people in your driveway without some OVERT, OBVIOUS action that is a direct threat to your and yours?

It doesn't excuse anything. The guys lawyer has a duty to do his best to get the guy off. The guy is being held on Murder charges (and rightfully so). It is just another example that people who have severe victim complexes shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.

[Silencer]

Yes, I'm quite well aware of what the lawyer was *trying* to do, I just found it to be a terrible attempt at pulling something out his ass, and thus felt the need to disparage it.

And that aside, it is actually kind of sick that someone would use a man's history of service in an attempt to get him off a murder charge, regardless of whether it falls under his job description or not...in that sense I'm torn between feeling pity and feeling hate for defence lawyers who get stuck with cases like this. >.>

[pathos]

Why didnt he just send out his attack lion like a normal person?

[Obdigore]

Silencer, on 30 January 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Yes, I'm quite well aware of what the lawyer was *trying* to do, I just found it to be a terrible attempt at pulling something out his ass, and thus felt the need to disparage it.

And that aside, it is actually kind of sick that someone would use a man's history of service in an attempt to get him off a murder charge, regardless of whether it falls under his job description or not...in that sense I'm torn between feeling pity and feeling hate for defence lawyers who get stuck with cases like this. >.>

I'm honestly not sure if the guy is a public defender or if he is part of a firm.

[worry]

http://thinkprogress...ty-legislation/

Pretty novel approach:
Yesterday, Missouri state Rep. Mike Leara ® proposed legislation making it a felony for lawmakers to so much as propose many bills regulating guns. Leara’s bill provides that “[a]ny member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, shall be guilty of a class D felony.”

[Gnaw]

Damn. It had been dead for 17 days. I was sorta hoping it would stay dead, (Gawd, my birth certificate is issued my that state.)

Edit: Your summary of the subject just sank in. The idiot apparently doesn't realize that the bill itself is unconstitutional.

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 23 February 2013 - 10:39 PM

[Assail]

worrywort, on 19 February 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

http://thinkprogress...ty-legislation/

Pretty novel approach:
Yesterday, Missouri state Rep. Mike Leara ® proposed legislation making it a felony for lawmakers to so much as propose many bills regulating guns. Leara's bill provides that "[a]ny member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, shall be guilty of a class D felony."

Might be a stretch here, but I think the point that he is trying to make is that if you break a Constitutional law, it's a crime, therefore any attempts to limit Constitutional law would also be a crime? At least that's my take on it. I've come upon this thread WAY too late, as I have much to say on the issue of gun control lol

[worry]

It's not unconstitutional to regulate guns. It is unconstitutional to criminalize the proposal of a bill.

[Assail]

worrywort, on 24 February 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

It's not unconstitutional to regulate guns. It is unconstitutional to criminalize the proposal of a bill.

I don't think you read my post. At all.

[worry]

I read it. If that's his point, he's factually wrong, a hypocrite, and doesn't understand the purpose of the Constitution (state or federal). That said, his actual point is to obstruct and/or punish legislators who disagree with him.

[Illuyankas]

At what point does an amendment - a change to the original document of the Constitution - stop being an alteration and become Constitutional law?

[Assail]

worrywort, on 24 February 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

I read it. If that's his point, he's factually wrong, a hypocrite, and doesn't understand the purpose of the Constitution (state or federal). That said, his actual point is to obstruct and/or punish legislators who disagree with him.

His point is easily construed in a plethora of different ways, but you can't argue with your perception of his point of view, you can only argue with the point of view he argues. I realize that is vague, but I highly doubt he's proposing to punish legislators, but more punish those who are trying to impede Constitutional law. I would say it's just as hypocritical, if not more so to attempt to pass legislation that goes directly over the head of the Federal Constitution.

I'm no Supreme Court Justice, but like I said, if you're proposing a bill that attempts to circumvent Constitutional Law (i.e. Second Amendment), then wouldn't that be the same as breaking that law, or contributing to the breaking of that law? It's playing a fine and bullshit line. It would be akin to a child being told "Don't go and paint on the wall!", and then turning around and pleading innocence because he didn't paint on the wall, he drew on the wall.

Everything is perception however. Leave it to the Supreme Court Justices to decide. It's their job after all.

Illuyankas, on 25 February 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

At what point does an amendment - a change to the original document of the Constitution - stop being an alteration and become Constitutional law?

I wouldn't know, I'm no Constitutional lawyer. This is just my personal perception of all of this. But I would hazard a guess that it becomes Constitutional law when that amendment is passed. It's just a matter of how you view the issue at hand whether you call it an alteration or Constitutional law. At the end of the day it's all Constitutional law when passed.

[worry]

Once again, it is not illegal (or against the 2nd Amendment) to regulate guns or restrict gun ownership, or to propose a bill that does so. All states already do this to one degree or another, as does the federal government. This state legislator literally proposed a bill that would criminalize as a felon anyone who proposes any bill along these lines, whether it's reasonable or not. It's not a matter of perspective, he already did this, and my original post links to the language of the bill. You're taking a hypothetical stance on an actual, real world event that requires no guesswork or speculation.

And to answer your question, no, proposing a bill that is unconstitutional is not against the law. Your bill either passes or it doesn't, and if it does, then its constitutionality gets sussed out by the judicial system. You aren't guilty of any crime for proposing that bill. Except this particular legislator feels that you should be.

[LinearPhilosopher]

http://www.freakonom...-radio-podcast/

Freakonomics weighs in on the issue. Good listen if you've a time. Interesting point they make is how irrelevant this issue is. The issue is so convoluted with no effective proposals and the fact that public pools kill more individuals than guns. One interesting idea they propose to regulate guns is to have mandatory sentencing if a gun is used in a crime.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 25 February 2013 - 06:00 AM

[Obdigore]

BalrogLord, on 25 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

fact that public pools kill more individuals than guns.

This is a straight up lie. I would imagine they are taking this Op-Ed out of context, as the whole gun-rights lobby is doing.

http://scienceblogs....ittpoolsvsguns/

Welcome to taking shit out of context.