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)   The gun was loaded, and so was the guy playing around with it at the gun show   (chicago.cbslocal.com) divider line 131
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

9986 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Apr 2011 at 4:05 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



131 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-11 08:13:05 AM  
The shooting was intentional

The drinking was accidental

Read TFA
 
2011-04-11 08:14:33 AM  

Mock26: untaken_name: Mock26: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!

It is NOT unrestricted. The Supreme Court of the United States expressly ruled in D.C. vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment that some regulation is in fact Constitutional.

Yeah, those founders with their weasel words like "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". They sure left a lot of loopholes in that one. All we had to do was change the definition of "infringed" to exclude regulation, and we were good to go. Bonus: applies to other rights, too!

Meh, they are dead, buried, and dust. What they wanted back then and what we want today are not always the same thing. At least the founding fathers had the foresight to realize that they could not see into the future and therefore created a mutable constitution so that future generations could change and adapt and interpret it as befits the times. Unrestricted by their standards simply does not apply to today's standards, simply because guns and society has changed so much in the past 200+ years.


I have to disagree. In the founding fathers' time they had beer, and guns, and idiots. Therefore, we may assume a few situations like this probably took place.

And yet, they still wrote the second amendment.
 
2011-04-11 08:25:43 AM  
moralpanic:

So this is one of those 'decent, law-abiding' gun owners black people we keep hearing about?


See how ignorant you sound?
 
2011-04-11 08:27:47 AM  
Am I the only one glad this guy didn't hop in his car and drive home? If he had, we'd be talking about banning cars and alcohol, not guns, right?
 
2011-04-11 08:30:24 AM  

jmr61: Gun shows and monster truck shows. Two events at which I shall never be found dead.

Farking idiots.


That almost sounds like a challenge.
/ITG
/Not Serious!
 
2011-04-11 08:48:14 AM  

trixter_nl: Mock26:
Meh, they are dead, buried, and dust. What they wanted back then and what we want today are not always the same thing. At least the founding fathers had the foresight to realize that they could not see into the future and therefore created a mutable constitution so that future generations could change and adapt and interpret it as befits the times. Unrestricted by their standards simply does not apply to today's standards, simply because guns and society has changed so much in the past 200+ years.

Granted they never gave SCOTUS the power to change the constitution, but instead put in a ratification process that requires the approval of the people not just some oligarchy. To date there has never been a 28th or greater amendment that would alter the 2nd (process similar to how the 21st removed the 18th restriction on alcohol).

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." -- Thomas Jefferson

I dunno, that seems to hold true to this day.


Actually, that is Jefferson quoting someone else. Link (new window)
 
2011-04-11 08:48:16 AM  

Freeballin: Am I the only one glad this guy didn't hop in his car and drive home? If he had, we'd be talking about banning cars and alcohol, not guns, right?


automobiles do kill more people per year in the US than guns especially for children under the age of 5. Wont someone think of the children!
 
2011-04-11 08:52:30 AM  

shruggingdowntheroad:
Actually, that is Jefferson quoting someone else. Link (new window)


Ok, I stand corrected. He did not come up with the wording but did include it in his "Legal Commonplace Book." I think that he included it because he believed in the sentiment however, which goes along with the point that was made.
 
2011-04-11 08:57:51 AM  

untaken_name: Well, at least now he knows what that zip tie was for. (The one he had to cut off in order to insert his magazine*.)

/TFA says clip, of course, but it was a .45 handgun, so *we* know it was a magazine.


came for this, leaving satisfied.
 
2011-04-11 09:00:57 AM  
i have never had a problem with RESPONSIBLE gun owners and gun users.

it's the IRRESPONSIBLE ones that i usually have a problem with.
 
2011-04-11 09:01:55 AM  
You can defend the gun shows all you want. It's all very inspiring, with Old Glory waving overhead, and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" playing in the background, one's hand clasped over one's heart - it brings a tear to my eye, it does.
Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that the gun shows exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.
Not the confiscatory, repressive laws that Heller mostly struck down anyway, but the reasonable, constitutional laws that forbid selling guns to drunks, drug addicts, felons or lunatics.
I have been to a couple of gun shows - and a sizable fraction of the attendees appeared to be drunks, addicts, felons and lunatics. I walked out of the second and last one I attended because there were so many freaks waving guns around. I'm only surprised that incidents like this aren't more common.
Now I don't know or care if these shows are technically legal - if they are, fine: go to 'em, if you like.
I myself will choose to stay away from them, and patronize my local brick & mortar gun dealer - he'll be there if I have a problem, and his store isn't full of crazy dirtballs when I go there.
 
2011-04-11 09:07:22 AM  
The most dangerous animal on this planet is still the human.
Maybe we should pass a law,,
 
2011-04-11 09:24:41 AM  

jso2897: Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that the gun shows exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.


Please substantiate this assertion of purpose.
 
2011-04-11 09:25:34 AM  

jso2897: You can defend the gun shows all you want. It's all very inspiring, with Old Glory waving overhead, and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" playing in the background, one's hand clasped over one's heart - it brings a tear to my eye, it does.
Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that the gun shows exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.
Not the confiscatory, repressive laws that Heller mostly struck down anyway, but the reasonable, constitutional laws that forbid selling guns to drunks, drug addicts, felons or lunatics.
I have been to a couple of gun shows - and a sizable fraction of the attendees appeared to be drunks, addicts, felons and lunatics. I walked out of the second and last one I attended because there were so many freaks waving guns around. I'm only surprised that incidents like this aren't more common.
Now I don't know or care if these shows are technically legal - if they are, fine: go to 'em, if you like.
I myself will choose to stay away from them, and patronize my local brick & mortar gun dealer - he'll be there if I have a problem, and his store isn't full of crazy dirtballs when I go there.


How does a gun show circumvent the law? The dealers still have to run a background check, and any face to face sale between non-dealers could be done just about anywhere, not just at gun shows.
 
2011-04-11 09:34:57 AM  
jso2897:
Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that the gun shows exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.
You lie and slander your betters.
 
2011-04-11 09:41:15 AM  
hmm, last few times this has happened, it was found out that they were a plant from a well known anti-gun organization.

even if he wasn't he is still stupid.

Drive a car drunk = wrist slap
use a gun drunk = book thrown at you.

/if only we had more congress members that liked to drunkfire instead of drunk drive then this would be legal!
 
2011-04-11 09:54:41 AM  

jso2897:
Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that the gun shows exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.


Now here I though the purpose of gun shows (and sportman/hunting shows) was to generate interest in products, see collector level items, unusual/handmade accessories from artisans, and attend classes/lectures/demonstrations. I stand corrected.

/Actually not that different from the Quilt Fair, just more lead and less thread.
 
2011-04-11 09:59:14 AM  

jso2897:
Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that the gun shows exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.


not true. Aside from the dealers charging excessive fees (this state has legally capped them at $35 for a transfer) I have never seen a single instance of someone circumventing the laws.

The fact that no law exists federally requiring private party transfers to file paperwork and some states have similar laws that does not circumvent the law any more than driving the speed limit circumvents the speeding violation laws.

You can sell those same firearms in the classifieds of a news paper and it would be just as legal.

All new firearms sold at gun shows still have the ATF form 4473 filed, back ground checks, and everything else required under the law. In my state every firearm has at least state paperwork done for a transfer.

Additionally gun shows have other things that are not considered a firearm. Sights (scopes, iron sights, red dot, etc), holsters, grips, replacement parts, ammo, etc. There are also vendors selling non gun things at many of the shows, from hunting gear to really bizarre things that have nothing to do with guns.


Not the confiscatory, repressive laws that Heller mostly struck down anyway, but the reasonable, constitutional laws that forbid selling guns to drunks, drug addicts, felons or lunatics.


"shall not be infringed" is there for a reason. It is legally binding but it is not constitutional as it goes against the wording in the constitution. If you accept this "modification without ratification" perhaps you would enjoy a permit to speak or perhaps just all forms of speech that does not put the government in a good light banned? If they can modify without ratification one section of the constitution what prevents them from doing it to other parts?




I have been to a couple of gun shows - and a sizable fraction of the attendees appeared to be drunks, addicts, felons and lunatics. I walked out of the second and last one I attended because there were so many freaks waving guns around. I'm only surprised that incidents like this aren't more common.


I am not sure what shows you have gone to, but I have never seen that and know that it would not be tolerated at any of the ones I have gone to. Perhaps it is your choice of shows that is the problem and not the shows themselves.

I also wonder how you know that someone is a felon based on appearance.

I have also never seen anyone wave a gun around except in the middle east when they shoot in the air in celebration of well almost anything if the news is any indication.

Most of the shows I go to the police even have a booth set up where they demo their latest swat gear or whatever.


I myself will choose to stay away from them, and patronize my local brick & mortar gun dealer - he'll be there if I have a problem, and his store isn't full of crazy dirtballs when I go there.


Many of them go to the shows to sell stuff, at least to the ones I go to.
 
2011-04-11 09:59:21 AM  

stevarooni: jso2897:
Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that gun shows ricer motorcycles exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.
You lie and slander your betters.

 
2011-04-11 10:00:01 AM  

Grass Hopper: Mock26: untaken_name: Mock26: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!

It is NOT unrestricted. The Supreme Court of the United States expressly ruled in D.C. vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment that some regulation is in fact Constitutional.

Yeah, those founders with their weasel words like "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". They sure left a lot of loopholes in that one. All we had to do was change the definition of "infringed" to exclude regulation, and we were good to go. Bonus: applies to other rights, too!

Meh, they are dead, buried, and dust. What they wanted back then and what we want today are not always the same thing. At least the founding fathers had the foresight to realize that they could not see into the future and therefore created a mutable constitution so that future generations could change and adapt and interpret it as befits the times. Unrestricted by their standards simply does not apply to today's standards, simply because guns and society has changed so much in the past 200+ years.

I have to disagree. In the founding fathers' time they had beer, and guns, and idiots. Therefore, we may assume a few situations like this probably took place.

And yet, they still wrote the second amendment.


yes - but when the constitution was written, it took considerable time and dexterity to load a musket.

/just sayin'
 
2011-04-11 10:01:31 AM  

LawnDartCatcher: yes - but when the constitution was written, it took considerable time and dexterity to load a musket.

/just sayin'


Yet that was the pinnacle of martial technology. The framers knew things would advance.
 
2011-04-11 10:03:59 AM  

R.A.Danny: stevarooni: jso2897:
Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that gun shows ricer motorcycles exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.
You lie and slander your betters.


Hey now, just because the Hayabusa and Ninja ZX11R have 200hp and can do several times the maximum speed limit does not mean that anyone ever actually does that.
 
2011-04-11 10:06:07 AM  

dittybopper: ...In fact, one could say that it's over-regulated. Here are some examples why:

1. Buying a new gun is the only enumerated constitutional right where you have to get prior permission from the government in order to exercise it.


I'm not going to address all of your derp, but the essence is that this is not factually accurate, only Fox News accurate. To refudiate your truthiness:

1. Under many circumstances, your right to free speech (First Amendment) can require permission. All broadcasting and much publishing is regulated, and the right to peaceful assembly may require permits (which can be denied and do cost money).

2. Your right to protection from search and seizure (Fourth Amendment) requires that you have some registered ownership or control; otherwise, you don't have the authority to prevent such actions (see privacy rights and garbage).

3. Citizenship (14th Amendment) requires documentation and registration, as all Freepers and Birthers will tell you to no end (and apparently if you are black, it requires special documentation).

4. The right to vote is only a smidge more open than the right to bear arms (various amendments); you have to get permission, and that requires documentation. Sometimes the "waiting period" for voting is much longer than a week.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Next time someone feeds you derp like "X is the only Y", either stop and think for a moment, or look it up.
 
2011-04-11 10:08:03 AM  

LawnDartCatcher:
And yet, they still wrote the second amendment.

yes - but when the constitution was written, it took considerable time and dexterity to load a musket.

/just sayin'


under that logic at the time the constitution was written it took considerable cost to operate a press, as such they should all be censored by the government to only say nice things about them.

If you dont like the 2nd amendment propose a 28th to change it. There are two methods available, one is to get congress to do it and the other is to have a constitutional convention (the states get together). After each of those it requires the states to ratify them (meaning the people vote). If enough people agree that things should be changed then they can be. A 28th amendment can be done. The 27th was done in 1992 so it is not like amending is an ancient art totally forgotten about.

When you use excuses to justify ignoring parts of the constitution you dont like you open the door for people to ignore parts they dont like but you do.
 
2011-04-11 10:11:44 AM  
There is an Amendment defending our rights to bear arms. There are also numerous SCOTUS rulings defining those rights. There is NO Amendment supporting a right to abortion, but there are SCOTUS rulings protecting it.

Think a little when you feel the need to protect something.
 
2011-04-11 10:23:45 AM  

Mr. Cat Poop: jso2897: You can defend the gun shows all you want. It's all very inspiring, with Old Glory waving overhead, and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" playing in the background, one's hand clasped over one's heart - it brings a tear to my eye, it does.
Let's not forget, in all the excitement, that the gun shows exist for one reason - to circumvent the laws.
Not the confiscatory, repressive laws that Heller mostly struck down anyway, but the reasonable, constitutional laws that forbid selling guns to drunks, drug addicts, felons or lunatics.
I have been to a couple of gun shows - and a sizable fraction of the attendees appeared to be drunks, addicts, felons and lunatics. I walked out of the second and last one I attended because there were so many freaks waving guns around. I'm only surprised that incidents like this aren't more common.
Now I don't know or care if these shows are technically legal - if they are, fine: go to 'em, if you like.
I myself will choose to stay away from them, and patronize my local brick & mortar gun dealer - he'll be there if I have a problem, and his store isn't full of crazy dirtballs when I go there.

How does a gun show circumvent the law? The dealers still have to run a background check, and any face to face sale between non-dealers could be done just about anywhere, not just at gun shows.


actually... they sort of do... in Indiana you only have to do a background check if you are 'licensed firearm dealer'... I believe the number of licensed dealers at these gun porn shows in Indiana is between 60% and 70%... that leaves 30% to 40% that aren't required to do any background check, don't care if the buyer is drunk, on drugs, a felon, has any outstanding warrants and/or can recite the poem 'CILL my landlord'.

They are a loophole that the NRA seems willing to kill everyone on the planet to protect... of course the NRA won't be happy until everyone on the planet has multiple guns on them at all times anyway.

we have nothing to fear but fear itself... and terrorists... and gangs of blacks... and messican gangs... and liberals...but all of these things can be stopped with a handgun and a sufficient amount of ammo.
 
2011-04-11 10:25:20 AM  

Secret Polish Boyfriend: dittybopper: ...In fact, one could say that it's over-regulated. Here are some examples why:

1. Buying a new gun is the only enumerated constitutional right where you have to get prior permission from the government in order to exercise it.


I'm not going to address all of your derp, but the essence is that this is not factually accurate, only Fox News accurate. To refudiate your truthiness:


1. Under many circumstances, your right to free speech (First Amendment) can require permission. All broadcasting and much publishing is regulated, and the right to peaceful assembly may require permits (which can be denied and do cost money).


The first amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law", and I think it unconstitutional for congress to have made laws that require permits to broadcast. As for the permits to assemble that is a city/county/state permit and not congress. Congress is defined in Article I, and the States (as used elsewhere in the bill of rights) are not subject to limitations on Congress nor do they have the powers they gave to Congress.


2. Your right to protection from search and seizure (Fourth Amendment) requires that you have some registered ownership or control; otherwise, you don't have the authority to prevent such actions (see privacy rights and garbage).


The 4th states in part "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." Because it is "their" papers, effects, etc, abandoned property (which garbage out for collection is considered) is no longer "theirs" and thus not protected.

You would have done better to say "when TSA was formed and the government replaced the private security companies at airports they started searching without probable cause" or "DUI checkpoints do searches without probable cause" (outside of checkpoints it is considered an "illegal stop" if the police cannot make up er I mean demonstrate probable cause prior to the stop).


3. Citizenship (14th Amendment) requires documentation and registration, as all Freepers and Birthers will tell you to no end (and apparently if you are black, it requires special documentation).

The documentation is only proof of citizenship and not citizenship itself. legally the two are different.


4. The right to vote is only a smidge more open than the right to bear arms (various amendments); you have to get permission, and that requires documentation. Sometimes the "waiting period" for voting is much longer than a week.


In many states there have been challenges against requiring documentation to get the voter ID card. So far it is illegal for them to demand things like a drivers license (disenfranchises the poor and minorities according to the claims) and other items. The last election saw many lawsuits over this very issue where states wanted people to prove identity, proof of residency, and similar things before being put on the rolls to vote.
 
2011-04-11 10:27:28 AM  

R.A.Danny: There is an Amendment defending our rights to bear arms. There are also numerous SCOTUS rulings defining those rights. There is NO Amendment supporting a right to abortion, but there are SCOTUS rulings protecting it.

Think a little when you feel the need to protect something.


In the same vein it took the 18th amendment to ban alcohol but it only took the stroke of a pen to ban drugs. SCOTUS has upheld the ban on drugs making it legally binding even though there is no constitutional power for them to make that ruling.
 
2011-04-11 10:33:22 AM  
and in a completely unrelated note... this weekend was also the annual Knob Creek Kentucky machine gun shoot... with lots of great american patriots, NRA members and informed voters.

Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot (new window)
 
2011-04-11 10:33:25 AM  

jso2897: I have been to a couple of gun shows - and a sizable fraction of the attendees appeared to be drunks, addicts, felons and lunatics.


Wow, you could tell that about people just by passing them in a crowd? You are either psychic or a judgemental asshat!
 
2011-04-11 11:07:08 AM  

trixter_nl: Secret Polish Boyfriend: dittybopper: ...In fact, one could say that it's over-regulated. Here are some examples why:

1. Buying a new gun is the only enumerated constitutional right where you have to get prior permission from the government in order to exercise it.
...
1. Under many circumstances, your right to free speech (First Amendment) can require permission...

The first amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law", and I think it unconstitutional for congress to have made laws that require permits to broadcast. As for the permits to assemble that is a city/county/state permit and not congress. Congress is defined in Article I, and the States (as used elsewhere in the bill of rights) are not subject to limitations on Congress nor do they have the powers they gave to Congress.


Your perception of constitutionality is irregardless to my earlier refudiation, since dittybopper claimed that 2nd Amendment rights are the only rights which require permits. They aren't. Gun licenses, and especially conceal-and-carry, are state issues, too. The problem is that you are apparently unaware of the 10th Amendment, which requires that states uphold the US constitution. The states ARE subject to the limitations of the federal government.

2. Your right to protection from search and seizure (Fourth Amendment) requires that you have some registered ownership...

The 4th states in part "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." Because it is "their" papers, effects, etc, abandoned property (which garbage out for collection is considered) is no longer "theirs" and thus not protected.


You missed the point; registration is required.

3. Citizenship (14th Amendment) requires documentation and registration, as all Freepers and Birthers will tell you to no end (and apparently if you are black, it requires special documentation).

The documentation is only proof of citizenship and not citizenship itself. legally the two are different.


I could say "the right to theoretically own guns does not require a permit." Theoretical citizenship is irrelevant.

4. The right to vote is only a smidge more open than the right to bear arms (various amendments); you have to get permission, and that requires documentation. Sometimes the "waiting period" for voting is much longer than a week.

In many states there have been challenges against requiring documentation to get the voter ID card. So far it is illegal for them to demand things like a drivers license (disenfranchises the poor and minorities according to the claims) and other items. The last election saw many lawsuits over this very issue where states wanted people to prove identity, proof of residency, and similar things before being put on the rolls to vote.


So you are saying that the clear example here of requiring registration/permission is proof that no registration/permission is required?

Are you arguing for the absolutely false statement that dittybopper made? Many (if not most) rights, regardless of whether they are part of the bill of rights or not, require registration and/or permission. There's no part of the Constitution that says you don't need registration and/or permission for any of the rights. Some do require it, and some don't. Even if you were to complain about paying for permits, well, poll taxes were essentially legal enough to require a constitutional amendment to ban them.
 
2011-04-11 11:11:27 AM  
This guy was criminally negligent, fark his couch.

That being said, when I do go to gun shows and the guy at the front asks me if I have any firearms I just say no.

Yeah, if I'm selling a firearm and will be carrying it in the open and allowing others to handle it prior to a possible sale I have absolutely no problem with third party verification that the weapon is in a safe condition and I always get the zip tie put on.

However,if I'm just shopping I just say "no sir" and keep walking. One thing I learned from the military is that upwards of 80 percent of negligent discharges happen during clearing or loading of a firearm (no citation, my own anecdotal observation, but it almost always seems to be some dumb LT with an M9 at a clearing barrel). To take my handgun out of it's holster and clear it properly in a room with hundreds of people present just to get the zip tie put on is an unacceptable safety risk.

Much, much safer to just leave it untouched in it's holster.
 
2011-04-11 11:19:35 AM  

chairborne:

However,if I'm just shopping I just say "no sir" and keep walking. One thing I learned from the military is that upwards of 80 percent of negligent discharges happen during clearing or loading of a firearm (no citation, my own anecdotal observation, but it almost always seems to be some dumb LT with an M9 at a clearing barrel). To take my handgun out of it's holster and clear it properly in a room with hundreds of people present just to get the zip tie put on is an unacceptable safety risk.


If you were caught, in my state you would lose your CCW if they had posted signs banning concealed carry within the show.
 
2011-04-11 11:25:09 AM  

LaraAmber: chairborne:

However,if I'm just shopping I just say "no sir" and keep walking. One thing I learned from the military is that upwards of 80 percent of negligent discharges happen during clearing or loading of a firearm (no citation, my own anecdotal observation, but it almost always seems to be some dumb LT with an M9 at a clearing barrel). To take my handgun out of it's holster and clear it properly in a room with hundreds of people present just to get the zip tie put on is an unacceptable safety risk.

If you were caught, in my state you would lose your CCW if they had posted signs banning concealed carry within the show.


I'm not an idiot. Signs hold no legal weight in my state and if I was "caught" somehow the most they could do is ask me to leave.
 
2011-04-11 11:43:11 AM  
So... I know this guy, and to whomever said he might be a plant from an anti-gun organization, I'm here to say... nope.

He was just drunk and exercising incredibly piss poor judgment, if my memories of him are any indicator. Good enough dude, but not exactly the best judge of good idea/bad idea ever.
 
2011-04-11 12:13:10 PM  

Secret Polish Boyfriend:

The first amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law", and I think it unconstitutional for congress to have made laws that require permits to broadcast. As for the permits to assemble that is a city/county/state permit and not congress. Congress is defined in Article I, and the States (as used elsewhere in the bill of rights) are not subject to limitations on Congress nor do they have the powers they gave to Congress.

Your perception of constitutionality is irregardless to my earlier refudiation, since dittybopper claimed that 2nd Amendment rights are the only rights which require permits. They aren't. Gun licenses, and especially conceal-and-carry, are state issues, too. The problem is that you are apparently unaware of the 10th Amendment, which requires that states uphold the US constitution. The states ARE subject to the limitations of the federal government.


No I am not unaware, I was stating that it is not a first amendment violation for a state to do anything not allowed in the first amendment. The first amendment is a limit on congress and congress alone. To reiterate "Congress shall make no law ..." it does not say the states cant, so it is not a violation for a state to do that. To support this belief MA and CT both had mandatory religious laws after the first amendment was passed, it was not seen as a violation then. When this happened was when SCOTUS claimed the right to do the "incorporation doctrine" where they get to pick and choose which of the bill of rights apply to the states. When they said the first applies to the states (which they did bit by bit and not as a all or nothing decision) they modified the first amendment without ratification.

As such getting a permit to assemble is perfectly valid for a state to do (but not the federal government). The rights in the first are not absolute rights, they are only limitations on the federal government (congress as defined in Article I).


2. Your right to protection from search and seizure (Fourth Amendment) requires that you have some registered ownership...

The 4th states in part "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." Because it is "their" papers, effects, etc, abandoned property (which garbage out for collection is considered) is no longer "theirs" and thus not protected.

You missed the point; registration is required.


I do not have to register my lease with the government on a rental that I may have, yet it is still protected under the 4th amendment. I do not have to register my person with the government, yet it too is protected (aside from all the unconstitutional exceptions like TSA, DUI check points, etc).

I am unsure how to even register a rented apartment or my person to get 4th amendment protections, could you provide a source for that?


3. Citizenship (14th Amendment) requires documentation and registration, as all Freepers and Birthers will tell you to no end (and apparently if you are black, it requires special documentation).

The documentation is only proof of citizenship and not citizenship itself. legally the two are different.

I could say "the right to theoretically own guns does not require a permit." Theoretical citizenship is irrelevant.

I was not talking about theoretical citizenship, I was referring to actual citizenship. In fact there is no law that requires you to carry documentation (ID) in this country, something about the 4th amendment. There is not even a legal requirement to prove your citizenship status to be president in this country, the vetting process is done by the party that nominates you. PA was going to pass a law right after the 2008 elections but iirc that failed, so currently there is still no requirement to prove citizenship status to run for president.

The requirements that you are talking about are for other things to prove that you are a citizen, such as purchasing a firearm, registering to vote (only in select areas), and applying for a passport. To be clear there is no requirement for you to prove citizenship to be a citizen, there is no documentation requirement and attempts to do that were shot down most recently shortly after 9/11 when the dems proposed a national ID card.


4. The right to vote is only a smidge more open than the right to bear arms (various amendments); you have to get permission, and that requires documentation. Sometimes the "waiting period" for voting is much longer than a week.

In many states there have been challenges against requiring documentation to get the voter ID card. So far it is illegal for them to demand things like a drivers license (disenfranchises the poor and minorities according to the claims) and other items. The last election saw many lawsuits over this very issue where states wanted people to prove identity, proof of residency, and similar things before being put on the rolls to vote.

So you are saying that the clear example here of requiring registration/permission is proof that no registration/permission is required?


I was stating a different point than the one you are now making. Let me be clear on voting. You do not have a right to vote (new window) Claiming that you have to register for this right is a false argument in this context.


Are you arguing for the absolutely false statement that dittybopper made?


No, in fact I gave examples that agreed in part with some of what you said, they were just different examples than your incorrect examples. Some of the problems with your examples is your lack of comprehensive understanding of the constitution and what it actually says, such as the first amendment arguments that you made.

The fact that I corrected your inaccuracies does not mean that I am taking the other side, especially when I never actually said what my position was.
 
2011-04-11 12:13:59 PM  

trixter_nl: FTA: Wilkinson cut off the band and inserted a clip.



//hot


The term clip is commonly used to describe a firearm magazine, though this usage is technically incorrect.

people really HATE when common usage cahnges the original meaning of words.
 
2011-04-11 12:18:40 PM  

namatad:

people really HATE when common usage cahnges the original meaning of words.


It is only common usage because of ignorance and the lack of correction. There is a difference, the words are not interchangeable. I can use incorrect words all I want, that does not make me magically correct by claiming that the definition changed. A cat is still a cat even if I call it a dog.
 
2011-04-11 12:31:10 PM  

R.A.Danny: There is an Amendment defending our rights to bear arms. There are also numerous SCOTUS rulings defining those rights. There is NO Amendment supporting a right to abortion, but there are SCOTUS rulings protecting it.

Think a little when you feel the need to protect something.


so you are alright with the government keeping a public database with your complete medical history? and the medical history of everyone in the US. with them keeping a complete DNA database of every citizen?

there is no right to medical privacy either.
pretty certain there is no right to keeping confessions and consultations with a priest or lawyer private either.

clearly, anything not literally in the constitution is illegal.

/I dont get why these tards still have problems with income taxes. THAT was legally amended to the constitution.
 
2011-04-11 12:37:42 PM  

namatad: so you are alright with the government keeping a public database with your complete medical history? and the medical history of everyone in the US. with them keeping a complete DNA database of every citizen?


Just noticing how many of the anti-gun people lean towards the left, the same demographic that wants to keep abortion 100% legal with no government interference whatsoever. While not talking about my feelings on either subject, I just think it would behoove the lover of rights to embrace all rights lest their favorites are trodden.
 
2011-04-11 12:43:21 PM  

R.A.Danny:
Just noticing how many of the anti-gun people lean towards the left, the same demographic that wants to keep abortion 100% legal with no government interference whatsoever. While not talking about my feelings on either subject, I just think it would behoove the lover of rights to embrace all rights lest their favorites are trodden.


If you do not agree with their position you obviously are not smart enough to be allowed to make a decision on the matter.
 
2011-04-11 01:08:17 PM  

R.A.Danny: LawnDartCatcher: yes - but when the constitution was written, it took considerable time and dexterity to load a musket.

/just sayin'

Yet that was the pinnacle of martial technology. The framers knew things would advance.


my point was referring to TFA that it was hard to be loaded and load a musket.

i think the framers would be amazed and perhaps sickened by RPGs, armor piercing bullets, automatic weapons, etc. not that they wouldn't like to try them out if given a chance.
 
2011-04-11 01:08:38 PM  

baka-san: Why you gotta make us non crazy gun owners look bad?

namatad: good deterent to the next tard.

Hasn't stared yet.




No shiat. Fu(king asshole. Can't believe he cut off the plastic band and essentially reloaded it. Should probably have all of his firearms confiscated since it appears he can't handle him.

Every gun show I've gone to in Nashville have signs all over the place stating no loaded firearms, plus here they visually inspect each one before you go on the floor. Conceal-Carry is not exempt.

People like this dickhead ruin it for all of us who are careful - that is all guns are always loaded. Lock his ass up.
 
2011-04-11 01:09:11 PM  

namatad: R.A.Danny: There is an Amendment defending our rights to bear arms. There are also numerous SCOTUS rulings defining those rights. There is NO Amendment supporting a right to abortion, but there are SCOTUS rulings protecting it.

Think a little when you feel the need to protect something.

In my opinion under the 10th amendment abortions are a state right not a federal one. Remember that states are sovereign and only gave up specific and limited powers to the federal government. Those rights are specifically enumerated in the constitution, and to further this, the 10th clearly states anything not given to the feds nor restricted by the constitution is fair game on a state level.



pretty certain there is no right to keeping confessions and consultations with a priest or lawyer private either.

The priest stuff is under religious freedom, which as I said elsewhere is a federal limit not a state one. The states may or may not have in their state constitutions (or by statute) similar limits on government. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ..." and congress is defined in Article I. Basically you cannot fully practice a religion that requires confessions (Catholicism is the major one, protestants allow it but do not require it) if what you say can be used against you.

In a similar vein there is the journalist protecting their source thing. There is no protection for sources, and if compelled to reveal their source the journalist is free to opt for contempt of court (which some have done and gone to jail for not revealing sources). Some areas have laws that protect sources but not all.

As for lawyer conversations that is protected under "due process". You cannot get a fair trial if you cannot discuss your case with your lawyer freely. If anything you say to your lawyer can be used against you you are less inclined to reveal to your lawyer what actually happened. With that said, if you tell your lawyer that you are going to commit a crime they are supposed to report you, the protection applies to past events not to future ones. However proving that you told them anything becomes difficult and most lawyers know that.


/I dont get why these tards still have problems with income taxes. THAT was legally amended to the constitution.

There are several issues with that. First SCOTUS said that the 16th amendment did not confer any new ability for the government to tax. I have not checked that case to see the logic so I am not well versed to give an opinion on why they said this or the facts that prompted them to rule in this way.

Another issue is the claims that there is no proof the 16th was ever passed. However if it did not confer new powers of taxation then does it matter? There are claims, again ones I have not verified, that in most every state the page in the journal showing who voted which way for ratification is missing. These are public records so there is the ability for people to validate this claim if they were so inclined.

Then you get into the CFR definitions. Some claim that "income" is defined oddly, such that most people do not qualify.

You also have the issue of how can you file a 1040 without waiving your 5th amendment right against self incrimination? If you do not declare illegally gained money you end up like John Gotti and Al Capone who both were convicted of tax evasion. If you do declare it then those records can be used against you for whatever you did to get the money (per a NY case against a burglar who declared such income). This is more of an implementation issue than one over whether or not income tax is actually legal.

You also run into issues of payment. Checks are not payment, they are a promise to pay. You are not "paid" until you deposit or cash the check (and funds are transferred). Your final paycheck is often cleared or cashed after Dec 31 if that is your payday. This means that the income is technically next year and not the previous year. It is not counted that way however.

There is also the belief that you did not receive income when you get paid. I am unsure of the legal status of this claim because I never researched it. When you work you do an equal value trade of labor for money. When you trade other items you are only taxed if there is a profit, for example if you have a garage sale (or ebay sales) if you broke even or lost money on the deal you owe nothing. If you profit you only owe on the profit itself. Labor for money is the only trade that triggers income tax. Some claim that work really fits into the "garage sale" rules and thus is not subject to any income tax since it is an equal value trade and no profit is generated. This goes back to how income is defined in the CFR as well, see that argument above.

In short if you are going to talk about people who dispute income tax you have to look at which argument they are using :)
 
2011-04-11 01:20:29 PM  

LawnDartCatcher:
my point was referring to TFA that it was hard to be loaded and load a musket.

i think the framers would be amazed and perhaps sickened by RPGs, armor piercing bullets, automatic weapons, etc. not that they wouldn't like to try them out if given a chance.


Perhaps it would be hard while tanked to load a musket (I have loaded a black powder rifle with one hand but I do not mix alcohol and guns so I cant say on that aspect). That however does not exempt the 2nd amendment, and I have to believe that they did not look at the history of weapons and how it evolved from the sword to powder based and not think that weapons would have evolved.

As for the list of weapons that you mentioned, I imagine that many would be somewhat surprised. I am unsure they would be sickened, as the preamble of the 2nd amendment goes into the point is to allow the average citizen the option (at their discretion) to be able to own military weapons. The second amendment does not protect hunting weapons or sporting weapons but military weapons. This point was not lost on SCOTUS when in Millar (1934) they specifically debated whether a sawed off shotgun had military application. The government said no, and iirc Millar's lawyer did not even show up.

If the state of "war machines" is such that RPGs, armor piercing projectiles, and similar are military grade then they are protected under the 2nd amendment.

The purpose of this is two fold. one it lets you have a militia. Note the militia is not an army, instead it is volunteer. When bullets start flying you are free to go home if you want, the national guard - once enlisted - is not volunteer. Two armies go into foreign soil, militias only defend their home turf. The national guard is in Afganistan at least and I think parts of Iraq. It reduces the requirement for a standing army, something the founders feared. This would reduce cost to the tax payers. You would still have armies on demand, and Article I Section 8 allows for congress to call forth the militia, train and equip them. And finally you get the ability for the people to deal with a tyrannical government should it ever come to that - something implicitly stated by multiple founders.
 
2011-04-11 01:35:21 PM  

jmr61: Gun shows and monster truck shows. Two events at which I shall never be found dead.

Farking idiots.




Aptly title the "Darwin Tour of Awesome!"
 
2011-04-11 01:36:24 PM  
The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. Militia members are citizen soldiers, meaning they work part time for the National Guard and hold a civilian job as well.

so yah, the national guard is the collected state militias
 
2011-04-11 01:39:31 PM  

namatad: The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. Militia members are citizen soldiers, meaning they work part time for the National Guard and hold a civilian job as well.

so yah, the national guard is the collected state militias


no, it is an army that reports the the governor of each state. If they were solely a militia they would not be overseas as part of an army. They can say that it is a militia in name, but in function it is not a militia, it is an army operating in a theater of war on foreign soil.
 
2011-04-11 01:57:26 PM  

trixter_nl: Mock26: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Your unrestricted 2nd amendment in action, ladies and gentlemen! Give it a big hand while it blows off its own foot!

It is NOT unrestricted. The Supreme Court of the United States expressly ruled in D.C. vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment that some regulation is in fact Constitutional.

No, they ruled it is legally binding. We had this discussion before that the SCOTUS does not have the power to modify the constitution without ratification, and just because they rule making something legally binding does not make it constitutional, they just dont have that power. "shall not be infringed" was never touched in Heller other than to quote the 2nd amendment. And the dissent commented that if "the right of the people" in fact meant the right of the people then people will argue that there should not be any gun restrictions. What Scalia said in the majority opinion totally violates "shall not be infringed" but for fear of mass appeal of anyone convicted as in possession of an illegal weapon (NFA item or 18 USC 922(g)) they went ahead and said it is ok in a similar way they said that the federal government can violate due process rights when Booker and Fan Fan appealed after their Blachley ruling.


Once again they have NOT modified the Constitution. But by ruling that gun regulation is legally binding they have ruled that said regulations are in accordance with the Constitution, and by default that means that they are Constitutional. A law that does NOT violate the Constitution is a Constitutional law. That is, after all, what the definition of Constitutional means!
 
2011-04-11 01:59:57 PM  

trixter_nl: In my opinion under the 10th amendment abortions are a state right not a federal one.


My point is be careful how easily you dismiss other's rights while holding the ones you like so dearly.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | 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