Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Last week Congress approved a bill permitting individuals filing for bankruptcy to exempt up to three firearms, so when you've lost your house and posessions you can just steal someone else's stuff   (blog.lehighvalleylive.com) divider line 159
    More: Asinine, United States Congress, Charles Dickens, Citibank, Elections in 2007, firearms, individuals filing, bankruptcy, semi-trailer trucks  
•       •       •

2040 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2010 at 1:05 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-04 01:40:49 PM  
jake3988: Mugato 2010-08-04 12:27:54 PM When you file for bankruptcy, they really come and take your shiat?
==============================================

As a VERY VERY VERY last ditch effort, yes, they can. It's called 'seizing your assets'. They put liens on your paychecks, they suck money out of your bank account... if that isn't enough, they'll take your shiat and sell it.

My aunt went through it. It's, in a word, hell.


Yeh, but when they "take your stuff", we are usually talking about a situation where someone came into money quickly, got a lot of credit, and then lost the money and have no way of paying off what they bought. Its not like someone hit some hard luck 30-years into their working life and the creditors show up like house-cleaing burglars. There is virtually no situation where a typical person files for bankruptcy and the creditors show up for things they wouldn't even know the person owns.
 
2010-08-04 01:41:01 PM  
jake3988: It's called 'seizing your assets'.

Your aunt needed a better lawyer. When a person files Chapter 13, creditors generally have to settle for hugely reduced repayment spread over several years, if they get anything at all. Chapter 7 often protects even more of your assets. Some assets aren't exempt, but your home, primary vehicle, most typical personal possessions, general income, pensions, insurance, etc, are usually protected. If your lawyer's any good.

The more wealth you actually have when you try to declare, the better your lawyer needs to be, but this is a general rule of wealth anyway. IANAL, but I've known plenty, and people who filed for bankruptcy.

One major issue is knowing how to protect your assets beforehand, and another is knowing when to declare. If you're inevitably going to declare, don't wait until creditors and collectors have already siphoned off most of your assets.

Not getting into debt in the first place is obviously better for society, etc, but in some cases it just happens. We encourage entrepreneurs in the US but hate the crap out of them when they take the necessary risks and lose, which isn't exactly fair. On the other hand, some people are just psychotic self-centered dicks with no sense of personal responsibility.

But they all need lawyers when the creditors come to kill them.
 
2010-08-04 01:41:54 PM  
Asinine tag is for the headline!
 
2010-08-04 01:42:17 PM  
For people who can't always afford to pay for heat or electricity, owning a rifle is the difference between eating meat and eating nothing but flour and water pancakes until payday. I know some people like that. Good people with jobs, but sometimes the ends don't quite meet.
 
2010-08-04 01:43:02 PM  
heap: you really can't come up w/ an extreme or goofy position that isn't actually held seriously.

Oh, no -- I'm not backing the concept, but publically provided firearms is the next logical step, if the right to bear arms is inalienable and not contingent upon solvency. They could give them out at the welfare office.

I don't think it's a good idea. It just happens to follow philosophically.
 
2010-08-04 01:43:08 PM  
Kazan: I actually know a 100 lb woman who can easily beat the shiat out of a 300lb man.

No you don't/no she can't

Pure fiction. She can't throw with enough force and could not manhandle a man of that size.
 
2010-08-04 01:43:40 PM  
Kazan: I actually know a 100 lb woman who can easily beat the shiat out of a 300lb man. She's a 4th Dan in (Olympic style, aka actual) Tae Kwon Do (not typical ITF-style shiatkwando taught through out most of the US during the 80s and 90s) who is the student of a Grandmaster and former South Korea secret service instructor (he holds 8th Dan in Tae Kwon do, 6th Dan in Hapkido and 6th Dan in Judo as of last i heard about 4 years ago).

I'm glad your friend is successful at controlled competitive fighting wherein she goes one-on-one against opponents with no intention of robbing or killing her. Certainly she'd have no business drawing a gun in such situations. However, those of us who own guns for self-defense are concerned about criminals, not competitors, and criminals will behave quite differently from competitive fighters.

so before you open your mouth with a presumptuous an insulting statement implying that I'm being dishonest/delusion perhaps you should know what the fark you're talking about.

I say the same thing to the guy presumptuous enough to imply "You don't need a gun for self-defense; all you need to do is spend several years becoming a martial arts expert!"
 
2010-08-04 01:44:23 PM  
Eh, if it makes the gun babies feel better that their penis extensions won't go away, sure, let 'em keep 'em.
 
2010-08-04 01:45:39 PM  
Damn that Republican Congress!
 
2010-08-04 01:46:11 PM  
Tony Van Morrison: Pure fiction. She can't throw with enough force and could not manhandle a man of that size.

No, you're simply wrong. There's no 100 lb woman who can ALWAYS win a fight against any 300 lb man in any situation. There are very definitely 100 lb women who can win most fights against most 300 lb men in most real-world situations.

Unless you have professional training and a lot of substantial experience in fights, I know a 5' tall female Marine officer who could almost certainly hit you in the throat hard enough to kill you if you tried to throw down with her. It's not the only way she could hurt you, but perhaps you see what I mean.
 
2010-08-04 01:47:56 PM  
Tony Van Morrison: Kazan: I actually know a 100 lb woman who can easily beat the shiat out of a 300lb man.

No you don't/no she can't

Pure fiction. She can't throw with enough force and could not manhandle a man of that size.


It all depends on her staying out of his reach and hitting him in the right spots. Of course if he lands one lucky hit he could easily knock her out with just that one. But if she is smart and manages to hit his ankles and knees (two places that take relatively little force to cause serious damage) she could theoretically take him out in mere seconds.
 
2010-08-04 01:48:32 PM  
Tony Van Morrison: Kazan: I actually know a 100 lb woman who can easily beat the shiat out of a 300lb man.

No you don't/no she can't

Pure fiction. She can't throw with enough force and could not manhandle a man of that size.


All other things being equal. I'm prepared to accept that a 100 lb woman could make things tough for a 300 lb man, with the proper training and years of practice. That is, if the man hasn't had any training himself.

Point is, though, that 99.99% of 100 lb women *DON'T* have the training and practice to do that.
 
2010-08-04 01:49:03 PM  
Goddess of Atheism: However, those of us who own guns for self-defense are concerned about criminals, not competitors, and criminals will behave quite differently from competitive fighters.

This is true. Criminals, on average, will be much poorer fighters but will be much more likely to take you by surprise, when you're wearing clothes not suitable for kung fu, etc. They're also more likely to be armed.

A trained fighter can almost always badly embarrass an untrained fighter, all things being equal. But you should never count on things being equal. Martial arts and guns are designed for different things. Pliers are not a good hammer, and a hammer is not a good pair of pliers.

If someone's standing ten feet away and holding a gun on me, I'd rather have a gun, myself, than know krav maga.
 
2010-08-04 01:49:31 PM  
Mugato: When you file for bankruptcy, they really come and take your shiat?

I went through bankruptcy about 15 years ago. There's limits on how much your stuff can be worth, and anything above that limit you're supposed to surrender to the government to be auctioned off to pay your creditors. It's done by category, and there are some exceptions. Like your car can be worth more if you use it as a required part of your job. The limit on guns used to be $0 though. You sit down in a room with a judge and a bunch of people working for various banks and credit card companies, and they ask you a bunch of questions about your assets. One question that they asked everyone there was "Do you own any firearms?"
 
2010-08-04 01:50:17 PM  
RandomAxe: If someone's standing ten feet away and holding a gun on me, I'd rather have a gun, myself, than know krav maga.

if someone is standing 10 feet away from me holding a gun on me, I'd rather have my wallet accessible and cash to give them and walk away, rather than getting into a gun fight.
 
2010-08-04 01:51:41 PM  
dittybopper: Tony Van Morrison: Kazan: I actually know a 100 lb woman who can easily beat the shiat out of a 300lb man.

No you don't/no she can't

Pure fiction. She can't throw with enough force and could not manhandle a man of that size.

All other things being equal. I'm prepared to accept that a 100 lb woman could make things tough for a 300 lb man, with the proper training and years of practice. That is, if the man hasn't had any training himself.

Point is, though, that 99.99% of 100 lb women *DON'T* have the training and practice to do that.


We're gonna need to institute mandatory 2 years military service for women. Can't do it for men, or they'd be back on even footing (or worse, since equal training levels would likely benefit the bigger and stronger proportionally more).
 
2010-08-04 01:52:10 PM  
I get it, its Fascist to support gun ownership?
 
2010-08-04 01:52:42 PM  
Katie98_KT: if someone is standing 10 feet away from me holding a gun on me, I'd rather have my wallet accessible and cash to give them and walk away, rather than getting into a gun fight.

They might kill you anyway. It's good to have options.

I mean, ideally, I'd rather they just dropped dead without muss or fuss or me even having to do anything, but it's not likely.
 
2010-08-04 01:53:59 PM  
It seems that it's only ever the anti-gun lunatics that spew off the kind of insanity found in TFA, devoid of reason or logic. Often I don't agree with the logic espoused by the NRA and similar groups, but at least there is logic there.

As mentioned, people who hunt for food, who are likely to be extremely poor and rely on their firearm for food, will appreciate this bill. With the value limit included, I don't really see a rational reason to oppose this.
 
2010-08-04 01:54:05 PM  
RandomAxe: Katie98_KT: if someone is standing 10 feet away from me holding a gun on me, I'd rather have my wallet accessible and cash to give them and walk away, rather than getting into a gun fight.

They might kill you anyway. It's good to have options.

I mean, ideally, I'd rather they just dropped dead without muss or fuss or me even having to do anything, but it's not likely.


eh, I'm of the opinion that guns cause more problems than they solve. Two people with guns = someone's getting shot.
homeowners with guns = guns on the streets.

but, you know, that's why I'm a gun hating liberal.
 
2010-08-04 01:56:38 PM  
Katie98_KT: RandomAxe: If someone's standing ten feet away and holding a gun on me, I'd rather have a gun, myself, than know krav maga.

if someone is standing 10 feet away from me holding a gun on me, I'd rather have my wallet accessible and cash to give them and walk away, rather than getting into a gun fight.


A gun is like a fire extinguisher: It gives you options, but it's not a magic talisman that makes you invincible.

Let's say you are cooking at home and you accidentally start a grease fire. If you have an appropriate fire extinguisher, you can attempt to put it out, but if the fire is already too large for the extinguisher to be effective, you aren't obligated to use it before you flee and call 911.

Same with the gun: You don't *HAVE* to use it in all situations, but having it gives you options that you might not otherwise have.
 
2010-08-04 01:57:10 PM  
mdking09: Yeah because any asshole who owns a firearm is automatically a thief and a violent person. Nice correlation to draw subby.

/Headline FAIL
//Proud gun owner and concealed weapon carrier.
///hope I never have to use it.


As a proud fellow gun owner and lawful concealed carry supporter, I'd feel a hell of a lot more comfortable if you were to leave your piece at home until you learn to distinguish between a joke and an insult - better still if you learn to endure an actual insult and disarm it with a joke.
 
2010-08-04 01:58:22 PM  
dittybopper: Let's say you are cooking at home and you accidentally start a grease fire. If you have an appropriate fire extinguisher, you can attempt to put it out, but if the fire is already too large for the extinguisher to be effective, you aren't obligated to use it before you flee and call 911.

a gun to me is like the option to open the window and throw out the pan with the grease fire in... straight into your neighbor's house.
not a fire extinguisher.
 
2010-08-04 01:59:21 PM  
TheAlternator: It seems that it's only ever the anti-gun lunatics that spew off the kind of insanity found in TFA, devoid of reason or logic. Often I don't agree with the logic espoused by the NRA and similar groups, but at least there is logic there.

As mentioned, people who hunt for food, who are likely to be extremely poor and rely on their firearm for food, will appreciate this bill. With the value limit included, I don't really see a rational reason to oppose this.


Especially such a low value limit. Three guns for $1500 total will get you a modest deer rifle, a modest shotgun, and a modest handgun or a nice .22 rifle.
 
2010-08-04 02:00:40 PM  
Katie98_KT: dittybopper: Let's say you are cooking at home and you accidentally start a grease fire. If you have an appropriate fire extinguisher, you can attempt to put it out, but if the fire is already too large for the extinguisher to be effective, you aren't obligated to use it before you flee and call 911.

a gun to me is like the option to open the window and throw out the pan with the grease fire in... straight into your neighbor's house.
not a fire extinguisher.


Well, I'm not responsible for your lack of rational thought.
 
2010-08-04 02:00:43 PM  
Dimensio: The author of the referenced editorial

It's not an editorial, it's just somebody's idea of a humorous blog.
 
2010-08-04 02:02:38 PM  
Kazan: martial arts

one of our instructors as a very small woman. didn't stop her from being one of the most bad ass instructors who nobody wanted to mess with


Because everyone has 10 years to spare on martial arts training, and access to decent teachers in their area.
 
2010-08-04 02:04:00 PM  
Katie98_KT: eh, I'm of the opinion that guns cause more problems than they solve. Two people with guns = someone's getting shot.
homeowners with guns = guns on the streets.

but, you know, that's why I'm a gun hating liberal.


In some ways they do. Life has problems. No one has to use a gun to solve them, but we get idiots who think that's a good idea.

Idiots doing so, however, shouldn't prevent the rest of us from having the option to use force when a situation warrants it. The framers of the Constitution had just emerged from a war they'd have had problems fighting without ready access to the same technology as their foes, and still lived in a time where a private citizen (though more often a company of some sort) could own sufficient weaponry and transport to lay siege to a city. They understood the possibility some weapons were capable of overwhelming force.

The government shouldn't be the only people with those weapons.
 
2010-08-04 02:07:38 PM  
Hacker_X: Apparently submitter doesn't realize that people still use guns to hunt for food to feed their families. This especially makes sense when you are poor as bullets and a rifle + a hunting permit are generally cheaper than buying meat for a few months.

That was exactly my thought on reading this.
 
2010-08-04 02:10:49 PM  
This just brings up the question of which gun to exempt. My most expensive, my favorite shooters, or my grandfathers guns?
 
2010-08-04 02:11:49 PM  
I don't have any problem with this, but I'm confused as to why it's needed. I was under the impression that the law already allowed you to keep your personal possessions and effects, excepting things of very high value - and the $1500 limit certainly doesn't extend that.
Any Fark legal eagles around? Real ones, not GEDs in law?
 
2010-08-04 02:14:36 PM  
Saiga410: This just brings up the question of which gun to exempt. My most expensive, my favorite shooters, or my grandfathers guns?

I had to go with most expensive. I love my 58 870, but the Saiga 12 will work a lot better during the zombie apocalypse. I shoot my mauser most of my bolt actions, but the R700 is probably a smarter choice to keep.
 
2010-08-04 02:17:09 PM  
A few points:

1.Tae Kwan Do, even the super ultra uber OMGlympic version is a *sport*, not a martial art.

2.Your typical 60 year old male has more muscular strength than your typical 20 year old female, even if they are the same height and weight. Testosterone is a biatch like that.

C. Guns are awesome. Then again, I've got a little tiny penis, seriously, I'm hung like a squirrel. But my wife carries a larger caliber than I do, so what is *she* compensating for? A tiny Vag?


That is all, carry on.
 
2010-08-04 02:17:36 PM  
Katie98_KT: eh, I'm of the opinion that guns cause more problems than they solve.

So do politicians and those aren't going away either.

Two people with guns = someone's getting shot.
homeowners with guns = guns on the streets.


Such a large number of logical fallacies in such a small number of words
 
2010-08-04 02:18:42 PM  
Saiga410: This just brings up the question of which gun to exempt. My most expensive, my favorite shooters, or my grandfathers guns?

You don't have your grandfather's guns, and there is no way they can prove otherwise.
 
2010-08-04 02:22:26 PM  
How do they even know what you own?
 
2010-08-04 02:29:02 PM  
I'm not a huge gun enthusiast, but this seems reasonable. Like others have already said, some people hunt for food, and the value of the guns they are exempting is pretty low.
 
2010-08-04 02:29:38 PM  
Mugato: How do they even know what you own?

Well, if you paid for them with any form of credit or debit card, they'd know about them. Then there is the infamous bound book and Form 4473 at the local gun shops, if you bought them there. And some states require you to register all, or certain types, of firearms.

But yeah, if you bought them 'off paper' with cash, or inherited them or something, there really isn't any way for them to know unless you declare them, and you can always claim you had to buy the PVC pipe for plumbing repairs ;-)
 
2010-08-04 02:33:56 PM  
sprd: dammit $1500 cap. oh well.

I was gonna say. Barrett 50 cal 82A1, Google says that's $8,223.00. That would have been sweet, getting to keep $24,600 in firearms.

And antique or otherwise collectible firearms could be much more. Now the key is to get one which appears to have a negligible market value on paper but turns out to be the one which shot JFK or something.
 
2010-08-04 02:39:28 PM  
Oznog: I was gonna say. Barrett 50 cal 82A1, Google says that's $8,223.00. That would have been sweet, getting to keep $24,600 in firearms.

Yeah, even a Remmy 40X, Kimber, Cooper, Dakota, etc would eat all of that up (and somtimes more) in no time.
 
2010-08-04 02:40:53 PM  
Oznog: sprd: dammit $1500 cap. oh well.

I was gonna say. Barrett 50 cal 82A1, Google says that's $8,223.00. That would have been sweet, getting to keep $24,600 in firearms.

And antique or otherwise collectible firearms could be much more. Now the key is to get one which appears to have a negligible market value on paper but turns out to be the one which shot JFK or something.


That gun? Sold it years ago at a gun show. Used the money to go on vacation. Oh, yeah, about that 8" Schedule 40 I bought a couple weeks ago: I had to fix the septic system.
 
2010-08-04 02:42:15 PM  
chairborne: Guns are awesome. Then again, I've got a little tiny penis, seriously, I'm hung like a squirrel. But my wife carries a larger caliber than I do, so what is *she* compensating for?

She's also compensating for your tiny penis. She's just more bothered by it than you are.

/hey, you asked


Seriously, I'm not in favor of most people owning or having guns. I'm not in favor of most people owning or driving cars, much less SUVs. Frankly, I'm not in favor of most people.

But I'm not quite willing to go fascist Just Me And The People I Choose on these issues, so I support the right to own firearms even if I think it's a bad idea. Some ideas are so bad and cause so much public harm that laws should be formed to prevent their fruition, and some ideas are bad but not bad enough to justify legislating against the rights of citizens.

I just don't happen to think it should necessarily be up to me what other people are allowed to do.

That is what "liberal" actually means.
 
2010-08-04 02:44:17 PM  
Mugato: How do they even know what you own?

I assume someone is sent to your house to investigate things of monetary value. Or in some states guns must be registered.
 
2010-08-04 02:45:57 PM  
dittybopper: about that 8" Schedule 40 I bought a couple weeks ago: I had to fix the septic system.

8" for the sewer pipe? That is some big crap!

/Yeah, that was on purpose
 
2010-08-04 02:51:11 PM  
jso2897: I don't have any problem with this, but I'm confused as to why it's needed. I was under the impression that the law already allowed you to keep your personal possessions and effects, excepting things of very high value - and the $1500 limit certainly doesn't extend that.
Any Fark legal eagles around? Real ones, not GEDs in law?


There are specific exemptions (for vehicles, tools of your trade, etc.), and then a catch-all exemption into which the debtor may shoehorn personal property not otherwise subject to exemption. It is my understanding that this provision provides a specific exemption, so that the debtor need not protect the firearms under the catch-all provision.

Mugato: How do they even know what you own?

When you file for bankruptcy, you are required to list your assets. Failure to do so accurately constitutes fraud on the bankruptcy court, the trustee, and the creditors, and may result in some or all of your debts becoming non-dischargeable (i.e., you'll come out of bankruptcy still owing money).
 
2010-08-04 02:53:07 PM  
saintstryfe: Eh, if it makes the gun babies feel better that their penis extensions won't go away, sure, let 'em keep 'em.

"Penis extensions" are of no relevance to the current subject of discussion. For what reason have you introduced the irrelevant subject of such objects?
 
2010-08-04 02:56:01 PM  
Katie98_KT: dittybopper: Let's say you are cooking at home and you accidentally start a grease fire. If you have an appropriate fire extinguisher, you can attempt to put it out, but if the fire is already too large for the extinguisher to be effective, you aren't obligated to use it before you flee and call 911.

a gun to me is like the option to open the window and throw out the pan with the grease fire in... straight into your neighbor's house.
not a fire extinguisher.


Perhaps, were your analogy actually valid, your position would be more credible.
 
2010-08-04 02:56:37 PM  
RandomAxe

Fair Enough.
 
2010-08-04 03:07:23 PM  
RandomAxe: Seriously, I'm not in favor of most people owning or having guns. I'm not in favor of most people owning or driving cars, much less SUVs. Frankly, I'm not in favor of most people.

But I'm not quite willing to go fascist Just Me And The People I Choose on these issues, so I support the right to own firearms even if I think it's a bad idea. Some ideas are so bad and cause so much public harm that laws should be formed to prevent their fruition, and some ideas are bad but not bad enough to justify legislating against the rights of citizens.

I just don't happen to think it should necessarily be up to me what other people are allowed to do.

That is what "liberal" actually means.


An interesting perspective, and one I can respect although I don't completely share it.

I grew up around guns, and I'm fairly comfortable with them. Most people I know who own guns are quite responsible about it. As it happens, right now there's a .38 sitting in the office next to mine, about 15 feet away, and it doesn't bother me in the least (my colleague keeps a gun in his office for self-defense). But I don't have a problem with state and local governments crafting reasonable firearm regulations to fit the perceived needs of different communities - rural Idaho is different from Los Angeles, for instance - and I don't think that such state and local regulations violate the Second Amendment. I think Heller was probably decided more or less correctly (although the opinion was Scalia's usual stew of vile sophistry). I also think that McDonald was decided incorrectly. I think the "well-regulated militia" clause, unless it is mere surplusage, militates against incorporation.

By the way - do all these wingnuts who want to do away with the Fourteenth Amendment want to do away with incorporation as well, and render McDonald moot?
 
2010-08-04 03:08:51 PM  
BMulligan:By the way - do all these wingnuts who want to do away with the Fourteenth Amendment want to do away with incorporation as well, and render McDonald moot?

Isn't McDonald's mostly rendered moo, anyway?
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report