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.

(WRCB)   NYC mayor launches campaign against gun laws, because if there's one thing NYC needs, it's more guns   (wrcbtv.com) divider line 161
    More: Obvious, nyc mayor, state legislators, gun laws, rocket launch, Mich  
•       •       •

3745 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Apr 2012 at 10:57 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-12 01:04:05 PM  

Kit Fister: So, instead of requiring people to use their own good judgement, we should legislate everything down to the smallest extent, and account for every possible outcome?

Seriously?

The laws SHOULD be fairly vague/overarching, because in cases where it's not clear that the law applies, the person should be investigated, charged if need be, and convicted if warranted by a jury. Laws are not intended to be hard absolutes.


In a different Florida stand your ground case, the law was used to get off a man accused of manslaughter who clearly started an altercation. The man in question left his house and property while armed, and confronted a neighbor he had an ongoing dispute with. A physical confrontation started, and the neighbor was shot. The case was dismissed as the judge did not have proof that the man who shot his neighbor didn't fear for his life at the time of the shooting.

Are you saying laws like that where an aggressor can shoot someone is reasonable? I'm not saying every detail has to be in the law. However, prosecutors and judges shouldn't be forced to not prosecute or to drop charges in cases that should clearly go to a jury.
 
2012-04-12 01:04:08 PM  
Stand your ground laws are pointless. The law of self defense already allows you to stand your ground if you are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. The only way you have to retreat is if you are able to retreat in complete safety. But, if you are able to retreat in complete safety your are NOT in imminent danger.

both sides reek of derp in debating these laws.
 
2012-04-12 01:06:29 PM  

RelativeEase: Stand your ground laws are pointless. The law of self defense already allows you to stand your ground if you are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. The only way you have to retreat is if you are able to retreat in complete safety. But, if you are able to retreat in complete safety your are NOT in imminent danger.

both sides reek of derp in debating these laws.


Wisconsin law had no such provision. To make such blanket statements about the laws in 50 states is like calling Africa a country.
 
2012-04-12 01:10:03 PM  

BigBooper: kendelrio: /I have a 10 year old daughter and will GLADLY serve the time for defending her.

I may be old fashioned, but I think as a father and husband, one of my duties is risk my well being to protect my family if I have too.

You better believe I would risk my life and my freedom for my family. Without question, and without pause.

Sometimes that means avoiding situations and confrontations. In other words being the opposite of a bad ass. If I'm with my family and was faced with the situation of having to hand over my wallet to a mugger If I believed that would end the confrontation, I would. I live in the real world, I'm not a ninja, or have any advanced hand to hand training. Sometimes protecting your family means being forced to sacrifice your dignity.


So when do you print your newsletter?
 
2012-04-12 01:12:06 PM  

cmb53208: jeepman258: I'll take Bloomberg more seriously when his guards are forced to follow the same laws as the citizens of NYC. Besides the blatant hypocrisy, where does this guy get off trying to affect policy about anything outside the city he is mayor of?

Blatant hypocrisy is Mike Bloomberg's stock and trade. And he tries to affect policy and force his will on other places, just ask Muslim college students that were spied on by the NYPD in New Jersey and Connecticut.

To get a better idea on the type of person Bloomberg is, he actually banned food donations to city homeless shelters because his health department would not be able to inspect the food for fat and salt content. And he gladly accepted an award from the government of Singapore.

Bloomberg is a paternalistic douchebag with control issues. If he truly cared about the safety of his citizens, he'd tell the NYPD to stop fudging statistics and investigate the crimes they refused to investigate to make the numbers look good. Bloomberg doesn't care about crime, he's worried about the peasants getting guns.



I hate Bloomberg with every fiber of my being, but on this one issue, I agree.
 
2012-04-12 01:12:13 PM  

BigBooper: Kit Fister: So, instead of requiring people to use their own good judgement, we should legislate everything down to the smallest extent, and account for every possible outcome?

Seriously?

The laws SHOULD be fairly vague/overarching, because in cases where it's not clear that the law applies, the person should be investigated, charged if need be, and convicted if warranted by a jury. Laws are not intended to be hard absolutes.

In a different Florida stand your ground case, the law was used to get off a man accused of manslaughter who clearly started an altercation. The man in question left his house and property while armed, and confronted a neighbor he had an ongoing dispute with. A physical confrontation started, and the neighbor was shot. The case was dismissed as the judge did not have proof that the man who shot his neighbor didn't fear for his life at the time of the shooting.

Are you saying laws like that where an aggressor can shoot someone is reasonable? I'm not saying every detail has to be in the law. However, prosecutors and judges shouldn't be forced to not prosecute or to drop charges in cases that should clearly go to a jury.


Florida law does not permit an aggressor to use deadly force unless an attempt to retreat fails. The judge likely failed to appropriately apply the law.
 
2012-04-12 01:14:28 PM  
BigBooper

And that mentality is why your more likely to shoot your spouse or kid by accident in the middle of the night than you are a home invader.

How can you make such a stupid and unsubstantiated claim like that.

Don't believe everything you see on TV or project your ineptitdue with a gun on everyone else.
 
2012-04-12 01:20:40 PM  

Dimensio: towatchoverme: Here's a thought:

Scrap your constitution and start over. Despite your slavish invocation of it at every opportunity, it's clearly not working for y'all.

Perhaps, before "scrapping" the Constitution, convincing the government to actually honor and abide by it, rather than ignore it when convenient to do so, should be attempted. A new Constitution will be of no use if it is ignored as frequently as is the current one.


It's all a CONSPIRACY!

The hysterical orgy of proud Constitutional misunderstanding beats on.
 
2012-04-12 01:23:14 PM  

Dimensio: Florida law does not permit an aggressor to use deadly force unless an attempt to retreat fails. The judge likely failed to appropriately apply the law.


That's not *QUITE* true:

776.041Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


OK, the way I read this is: IF you are committing a felony, or escaping from one, you can't claim self-defense period.

If you did provoke the use of force initially, and you can't escape, or if you do escape but the person follows you, then you're OK.

I guess it depends on your definition of "exhausted every reasonable means to escape".
 
2012-04-12 01:24:30 PM  

BigBooper: Kit Fister: So, instead of requiring people to use their own good judgement, we should legislate everything down to the smallest extent, and account for every possible outcome?

Seriously?

The laws SHOULD be fairly vague/overarching, because in cases where it's not clear that the law applies, the person should be investigated, charged if need be, and convicted if warranted by a jury. Laws are not intended to be hard absolutes.

In a different Florida stand your ground case, the law was used to get off a man accused of manslaughter who clearly started an altercation. The man in question left his house and property while armed, and confronted a neighbor he had an ongoing dispute with. A physical confrontation started, and the neighbor was shot. The case was dismissed as the judge did not have proof that the man who shot his neighbor didn't fear for his life at the time of the shooting.

Are you saying laws like that where an aggressor can shoot someone is reasonable? I'm not saying every detail has to be in the law. However, prosecutors and judges shouldn't be forced to not prosecute or to drop charges in cases that should clearly go to a jury.


No, I'm saying that there are cases that could be added to the statute, and are a part of existing Law. As far as I'm aware, FL law has a provision that already makes it a crime to use self defense when charged for shooting someone during an altercation you started. Many other states already have that.

The fact that prosecutors and judges WON't follow through on it is another issue.
 
2012-04-12 01:27:31 PM  

Silverstaff: cybernia: Silverstaff: poot_rootbeer: A bold stance on 'Stand Your Ground' laws from the mayor of a city in a state which has no such laws.

STFU & GBTW, Mayor $loom$erg.

Last I checked, Mayor Bloomberg thinks that the jurisdiction of NYC extends nationwide, thus he should be able to dictate the laws of other states to them because it's New York, after all.

Hence why he sent undercover NYPD officers out-of-state to make illegal gun purchases as some propaganda stunt to encourage more gun control nationwide (and breaking laws in the process).

Legal or not, what seems to get lost in criticism of those stings is that they were able to make illegal purchases. Why don't we hear an uproar about that?

Probably because the fact those illegal sales were being made wasn't a huge surprise. There are a lot of guns in the US, a lot of weapons that aren't well documented, and it is pretty easy to get your hands on one. That isn't going to change, especially in light of recent SCOTUS decisions expanding 2nd Amendment protections.

The really unexpected part of that story was that a local mayor sent local police to an out-of-state jurisdiction to commit crimes. Did Bloomberg really expect the country to just not care that the NYPD was going to other states, undercover, to commit crimes? Did he think that the rest of the country would accept him telling his police officers to go around America and find crimes to report, even if you have to commit them themselves?

Reverse that. If the mayor of Jackson, MI sent a few Jackson PD officers to NYC, undercover and without telling the NYPD, and they bought some drugs undercover, then afterwards they came back and used this as proof about how NYC is a haven for drug dealers and drugs being imported in through New York are affecting small towns nationwide, do you think Bloomberg would be touched by that and want to crack down on drugs for the good of small-town America, or would he furious about somebody stepping on his toes?


If it's no surprise, why haven't States been bugging the feds to step up enforcement? Are you saying that the States in question know there is a problem but are taking no steps to deal with it?

The local mayor example difference is NYC admits the problem exists and works to eliminate it. The States where it is easy to buy an illegal gun don't admit to that problem. In fact, that local mayor's town probably has a bunch of meth labs.
 
2012-04-12 01:28:25 PM  

Protricity: Dimensio: towatchoverme: Here's a thought:

Scrap your constitution and start over. Despite your slavish invocation of it at every opportunity, it's clearly not working for y'all.

Perhaps, before "scrapping" the Constitution, convincing the government to actually honor and abide by it, rather than ignore it when convenient to do so, should be attempted. A new Constitution will be of no use if it is ignored as frequently as is the current one.

It's all a CONSPIRACY!

The hysterical orgy of proud Constitutional misunderstanding beats on.


Are you attempting to actually respond to my comment?
 
2012-04-12 01:31:07 PM  

cybernia: The local mayor example difference is NYC admits the problem exists and works to eliminate it.


An effective means of "eliminating" the problem is enabling private citizens to, in some way, access the results the NICS database with respect to a prospective firearm purchaser. Unfortunately, many civilian disarmament advocates evidently oppose such an alteration in law. Many such advocates, in fact, dishonestly claim that the "problem" is inherent to "gun shows", when in fact the "problem" is an inability of the federal government to legally regulate private sales of firearms regardless of where they occur.
 
2012-04-12 01:32:06 PM  

BigBooper: And that mentality is why your more likely to shoot your spouse or kid by accident in the middle of the night than you are a home invader.


There's a Surefire flashlight on my home defense guns. Just because you're shooting at somebody in your house doesn't mean the Rules (Be aware of your target and what's behind it) went out the window.

cybernia: You have the Tihart Amendment which blocks the ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft and prevents the feds from sharing trace data with local municipalities so they can investigate corrupt gun dealers and traffickers.
AND, background check records are destroyed within 24 hours which makes it hard to catch dealers who falsify their records, and to identify and straw purchasers.


As was already stated, twice, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
 
2012-04-12 01:36:03 PM  

Buffalo77: How can you make such a stupid and unsubstantiated claim like that


Well there are the studies published in peer reviewed journals... So I wouldn't exactly call the claim "unsubstantiated".

Buffalo77: or project your ineptitdue with a gun on everyone else.


Oh them is FIGHTING words! I'd love to show you what I can do with a gun; at a range of course. One of my first lessons my daddy taught me though was to know what your shooting at, to know your surroundings, and what's behind your target. If I ever have to defend my family, I'm damn well going to have an idea of what I'm shooting at before I start pulling the trigger.

/my dad and sister are the true dead eyes in the family
//Seriously, my older sister could give Annie Oakley a run for her money
 
2012-04-12 01:37:51 PM  

cybernia: If it's no surprise, why haven't States been bugging the feds to step up enforcement? Are you saying that the States in question know there is a problem but are taking no steps to deal with it?

The local mayor example difference is NYC admits the problem exists and works to eliminate it. The States where it is easy to buy an illegal gun don't admit to that problem. In fact, that local mayor's town probably has a bunch of meth labs.


They don't care because there are a lot of problems in this country, poorly documented gun sales are way, way down on the priority list. Many states have pretty relaxed local gun laws and frankly don't care about some technical violations of Federal gun laws.

Probably another reason nobody gave a flying fark about Bloomberg's illegal operation: most of the country isn't as anti-gun paranoid as the NYC government.

Meth labs are a lot higher priority. They are an imminent health hazard from toxic chemicals, an explosion risk as well, and meth is pretty much inherently illegal (unlike guns). Somebody buying meth is up to no good. Somebody buying a gun at a gun show could have lots of lawful uses for it (hunting is very popular around here).
 
2012-04-12 01:42:24 PM  

dittybopper: farkityfarker: I'm guessing that Zimmerman wishes he hadn't had a gun that night.

Probably guessing wrong. All Zimmerman has to do is show that he was reasonably in fear of his life, or of serious injury, and that he couldn't reasonably escape from the situation, by the preponderance of evidence to a judge before any trial commences. Then the judge is bound by Florida law to dismiss the charges. But let's say that doesn't happen: He's still got a reasonable chance in front of a jury. The state has to prove Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt, and unless they have some really, really good evidence that we haven't heard about, or they can stack the jury, it's likely that there is enough reasonable doubt that Zimmerman will end up with a 'not gillcup' verdict.

My thinking is that the decision to charge him is at least partially politically motivated: Public opinion is inflamed right now, and a decision not to charge Zimmerman would likely cause at least some rioting, ala the Rodney King verdicts. Nobody in power wants that: The local government in Sanford doesn't want it, the state of Florida doesn't want it, and the federal government doesn't want it. Not in an election year. Charging Zimmerman gives people a chance to cool off, it takes the burden off of the prosecutor, and it is entirely likely that any trial won't happen until after election night in November.


Zimmermann, if the trial is fair, cannot claim self defense "that he was in fear of his life" BECAUSE OF Stand Your Ground laws. The second he went after Martin, Martin and ONLY Martin is protected by Stand Your Ground. If someone breaks into your house, you are entitled to use deadly force (not just a gun) to neutralize the situation. Stand Your Ground extends this right beyond the home, making where this happened no different from being in Treyvon Martins house. Someone breaks into my house with a gun, and I make the mistake of not getting one of my own, I am still legally able to defend myself until the threat is neutralized. If that means beating the home breaker to death so be it. The ONLY option the home breaker has is to leave. He cannot shoot me in self defense in my own home. If anything, Stand Your Ground is what will eventually hang this wannabe cop.

Essentially the claim to self defense can never relate to Zimmermann in this instance. And this is THANKS to Stand Your Ground, not in spite of it.

Oh, and Nurse Bloomberg is far and away the worst excuse for a human being the planet currently has. Wishing a long, painful death to him from cancer isn't fair to the cancer cells that would have to put up with him until he finally died.
 
2012-04-12 01:51:11 PM  

Silverstaff: Probably another reason nobody gave a flying fark about Bloomberg's illegal operation: most of the country isn't as anti-gun paranoid as the NYC government.


The other point is that Bloomberg wants all kinds of new laws when dozens of laws already exist that make what he wants stopped illegal. So if you buy a dozen guns in Virginia and smuggle them into NY city to sell them on the black market the score of laws you broke didn't stop you, but one more will?

Stopping gun crime isn't about creating more laws that only the law abiding will follow. It will take aggressive enforcement of existing laws to catch and punish criminals. Unfortunately both drives to increase enforcement of existing laws, or the application of new laws, always seems to end up nailing buba for selling grandpas old hunting rifle, or some other otherwise law abiding citizen for a technical violation of gun laws.
 
2012-04-12 01:53:02 PM  

Callous: When faced with the threat of death or gross bodily harm, clearly the smartest thing to do is to turn your back and attempt to run. Especially if you are old, infirm or otherwise physically inferior to your attacker.


That will just make you die tired.

When faced with death or gross bodily harm. The smartest thing to do is to rededuce your attacker into the largest number of small pieces you can in the shortest amount of time.

/Let me just turn my back to a man with a gun threatening to shoot me! Surely the laws of chivalry will protect me from someone who doesn't care about committing a federal crime.
 
2012-04-12 01:55:00 PM  
This guy wants all guns to be confiscated and melted down. Well, except for the ones his personal (as in, not government official protection) bodyguards carry. Because only rich people should feel protected.
 
2012-04-12 02:00:28 PM  

Luthiel: jeepman258: I'll take Bloomberg more seriously when his guards are forced to follow the same laws as the citizens of NYC. Besides the blatant hypocrisy, where does this guy get off trying to affect policy about anything outside the city he is mayor of?

This. Bloomberg can at least make a semi-plausible argument for restrictions on firearm sales in other states, but this? Mind your own farking business, Mayor Asshat.


Agrees
 
2012-04-12 02:01:06 PM  

ex-nuke:

Dude, you really ought to read the Tihart Amendment that you seem to blame so much on. It restricts BATFE gun traces to legimitate law enforcement investigations and prevents BS studies from using twisted numbers to push for gun bans and bogus law suites.


If local law enforcement sees that a substantial amount of guns used in crimes come from a few dealers, why shouldn't they be able to go after them?

The BATFE can walk into any gun dealer's place of business and do an audit whenever they want. Any businessman who doesn't do in

From what I've read, only 1 in 10 dealers can expect to be audited in any given year.

Link (new window)
 
2012-04-12 02:01:31 PM  

fluffy2097: The smartest thing to do is to rededuce your attacker into the largest number of small pieces you can in the shortest amount of time.


I'm assuming you have extensive training in hand to hand, small, and large weapon combat as a member of a CIA ninja death squad, and could eviscerate a dozen attackers with your bare hands in less time than it takes to blink?
 
2012-04-12 02:04:30 PM  
And we all know how safe gun laws have made NY
 
2012-04-12 02:06:40 PM  
Don't you remember how awesome New York in the late 70's and early 80's was!?
 
2012-04-12 02:14:14 PM  

BigBooper: jafiwam: You are missing some facts.

That "kid" broke in the house of the guy he knew called in a noise compliant several hours earlier. He wasn't hiding, he was after revenge of some type. The homeowner knew this, and THAT is why he shot him. Not because he was there.

Yes, I didn't go into all the details. It was more of an example. However, speculation in every article I read was that the kid was simply hiding from the cops, who were breaking up the party. Nothing about the kids history, nor his actions indicate that he was anything other that drunk, stoned, and very stupid. The idiot probably didn't even know who had called the cops, or that someone did.


The homeowner's point of view at the time, is the only thing that matters. What the kid was ACTUALLY doing is irrelevant. The homeowner knew he called the cops on a bunch of kids, and now one of them was in his home.

From the pictures of the guy, he wasn't someone anybody wouldn't take very seriously either.

As such, this is a shiatty example to hold up as a problem. From the homeowner's context it was a good shoot, and NOT a mistake.

Furthermore, for you, a guy apparently in Wisconsin, which has had CCW for five months if you got it in the first week, and where the requirements are "a training class" without a whole lot more specified, and a where the castle doctrine is even younger, you are hardly a person to lecture on self defense and castle doctrine.

The laws need to be loose precisely because of the defender's context and point of view. Things can look horribly evil and not be, and the reverse as well. The defender needs to be able to know they won't get caught by some impossible to know fact and thrown into prison because of it.

/Oh, and fark NYC and fark mike bloomberg.
 
2012-04-12 02:16:26 PM  

Biv: towatchoverme: Here's a thought:

Scrap your constitution and start over. Despite your slavish invocation of it at every opportunity, it's clearly not working for y'all.

Still better than what anyone else has.


Well, it would be if we still paid any attention to its provisions.

But nooooooooooooooooooooooo....
 
2012-04-12 02:17:36 PM  

BigBooper: Kit Fister: So, instead of requiring people to use their own good judgement, we should legislate everything down to the smallest extent, and account for every possible outcome?

Seriously?

The laws SHOULD be fairly vague/overarching, because in cases where it's not clear that the law applies, the person should be investigated, charged if need be, and convicted if warranted by a jury. Laws are not intended to be hard absolutes.

In a different Florida stand your ground case, the law was used to get off a man accused of manslaughter who clearly started an altercation. The man in question left his house and property while armed, and confronted a neighbor he had an ongoing dispute with. A physical confrontation started, and the neighbor was shot. The case was dismissed as the judge did not have proof that the man who shot his neighbor didn't fear for his life at the time of the shooting.

Are you saying laws like that where an aggressor can shoot someone is reasonable? I'm not saying every detail has to be in the law. However, prosecutors and judges shouldn't be forced to not prosecute or to drop charges in cases that should clearly go to a jury.


[CITATION NEEDED]
 
2012-04-12 02:18:37 PM  
Bloomberg only wants his private army to have guns even though the NYPD was caught red handed by the Village Voice refusing to investigate serious crimes to make the stats look good. Yup, sounds like paradise...
 
2012-04-12 02:20:38 PM  

cybernia: ex-nuke:



If local law enforcement sees that a substantial amount of guns used in crimes come from a few dealers, why shouldn't they be able to go after them?


if local law enforcement knows what dealers sold the guns, then they've already received the trace information that you claim they can't get. What exactly do you think they should be going after the dealers for? All gun purchases through dealers must have a form 4473 filled out and a NICS check performed by the FBI (or state police if in NJ), with the dealer receiving an OK from the FBI to transfer the gun to the buyer before the transaction can occur. So are you saying that there are gun dealers breaking federal law and selling to prohibited persons and not being prosecuted for it? If so, it's a federal issue to be dealt with by BATFE, not local law enforcement. Either way, your argument is invalid.
 
2012-04-12 02:30:38 PM  

cybernia: ex-nuke:

Dude, you really ought to read the Tihart Amendment that you seem to blame so much on. It restricts BATFE gun traces to legimitate law enforcement investigations and prevents BS studies from using twisted numbers to push for gun bans and bogus law suites.

If local law enforcement sees that a substantial amount of guns used in crimes come from a few dealers, why shouldn't they be able to go after them?

The BATFE can walk into any gun dealer's place of business and do an audit whenever they want. Any businessman who doesn't do in

From what I've read, only 1 in 10 dealers can expect to be audited in any given year.

Link (new window)



Old data is old

There were approximately 65,000 FFLs engaged in business in fiscal year 2011 (excluding persons holding collector licenses). During that time, ATF conducted more than 13,100 firearms compliance inspections. About 50 percent of the licensees inspected were determined to be in full compliance with the law and regulations and no violations were cited. Approximately 71 federal firearms licenses were revoked or were denied renewal due to willful violations of the GCA. This figure is approximately .54 percent of the number of licensees inspected.

As a note, a "violation" can be for pretty minor stuff. Typos and such. For a while they were nailing people for using postal abbreviations because the form 4473 didn't say you could. Then they decided that was okay.
 
2012-04-12 02:43:44 PM  

jafiwam: which has had CCW for five months if you got it in the first week


I applied on the first possible day. Got it a little over a month latter.
And you have no idea what my back ground and training with firearms is. I've been around guns and the gun culture all my life, I've shot competitively, and have held a federal firearms license. I've been a volunteer and member of the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and of the Gun Show protection union. I can walk into any national gun show anywhere in this country, and know at least a dozen people who know my name on sight. I've shot more guns in more calibers than you probably realize exist. I've handled guns that are worth more than my house (they didn't let me shoot that one). Whats more, I've been around some of the greatest heroes of world war two, as well as some of the most despicable neonazis in America. I shook the hand of Paul Tibbets, and watched with pride as a crowd of sixty thousand largely ignored Randy Weaver as he tried to hock his book.

So no, I don't think you know anything about what I know about guns and gun laws.
 
2012-04-12 02:52:25 PM  

Spade: As a note, a "violation" can be for pretty minor stuff. Typos and such. For a while they were nailing people for using postal abbreviations because the form 4473 didn't say you could. Then they decided that was okay.


They finally gave up on their "zero tolerance" policy? I know some dealers were getting majorly hassled because someone used Y and N on the 4473 instead of writing out Yes and NO.

I know of one dealer who was getting threatened with having his license pulled for having inaccurate records. Of course they had inaccurate records because they had been robbed. The store called to ask the BATFE how they record the missing firearms, so an inspector came in with an attitude and a heavy badge.
 
2012-04-12 03:06:21 PM  

jeepman258: cybernia: ex-nuke:



If local law enforcement sees that a substantial amount of guns used in crimes come from a few dealers, why shouldn't they be able to go after them?


if local law enforcement knows what dealers sold the guns, then they've already received the trace information that you claim they can't get. What exactly do you think they should be going after the dealers for? All gun purchases through dealers must have a form 4473 filled out and a NICS check performed by the FBI (or state police if in NJ), with the dealer receiving an OK from the FBI to transfer the gun to the buyer before the transaction can occur. So are you saying that there are gun dealers breaking federal law and selling to prohibited persons and not being prosecuted for it? If so, it's a federal issue to be dealt with by BATFE, not local law enforcement. Either way, your argument is invalid.


NYC knows where the guns are coming from after they've been used in a crime. What they can't get it is who they're coming from. That's the data the ATF withholds.

They have been bugging the feds to take action for years, yet these dealers continue to in business with no hassles from the Feds. Bloomberg's stupid stings were done to publicize the problem. Yet, instead of demanding the feds crack down, people scream at Bloomberg.

NICS records are destroyed 24 hours after the check is approved which hurts law enforcement from tracking and identifying strawmen buyers.

You and others keep saying that it is for the feds to purse, not local enforcement. Well, that is what Bloomberg and other mayors and police departments have been yelling about for all these years. The feds are not doing it. So, local mayors, and P.D.s have said, if you aren't going to do it, then give us the tools to do it.
 
2012-04-12 03:09:22 PM  

jafiwam: BigBooper: Kit Fister: So, instead of requiring people to use their own good judgement, we should legislate everything down to the smallest extent, and account for every possible outcome?

Seriously?

The laws SHOULD be fairly vague/overarching, because in cases where it's not clear that the law applies, the person should be investigated, charged if need be, and convicted if warranted by a jury. Laws are not intended to be hard absolutes.

In a different Florida stand your ground case, the law was used to get off a man accused of manslaughter who clearly started an altercation. The man in question left his house and property while armed, and confronted a neighbor he had an ongoing dispute with. A physical confrontation started, and the neighbor was shot. The case was dismissed as the judge did not have proof that the man who shot his neighbor didn't fear for his life at the time of the shooting.

Are you saying laws like that where an aggressor can shoot someone is reasonable? I'm not saying every detail has to be in the law. However, prosecutors and judges shouldn't be forced to not prosecute or to drop charges in cases that should clearly go to a jury.

[CITATION NEEDED]


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

[CITATION GRANTED]
 
2012-04-12 03:16:17 PM  

Giltric: Wierd.

Bloombergs security detail is allowed to shoot people who have the intention of doing Bloomberg harm.......thats not self defense. Bloomberg could shoot his attacker, but I didn;t think you could shoot someone who had the intention of killing someone else.


We are a nation of laws mr mayor.


Defense of others is a time-honored affirmative defense when charged with a crime.
 
2012-04-12 03:22:00 PM  

cybernia: jeepman258: cybernia: ex-nuke:



If local law enforcement sees that a substantial amount of guns used in crimes come from a few dealers, why shouldn't they be able to go after them?


if local law enforcement knows what dealers sold the guns, then they've already received the trace information that you claim they can't get. What exactly do you think they should be going after the dealers for? All gun purchases through dealers must have a form 4473 filled out and a NICS check performed by the FBI (or state police if in NJ), with the dealer receiving an OK from the FBI to transfer the gun to the buyer before the transaction can occur. So are you saying that there are gun dealers breaking federal law and selling to prohibited persons and not being prosecuted for it? If so, it's a federal issue to be dealt with by BATFE, not local law enforcement. Either way, your argument is invalid.

NYC knows where the guns are coming from after they've been used in a crime. What they can't get it is who they're coming from. That's the data the ATF withholds.

They have been bugging the feds to take action for years, yet these dealers continue to in business with no hassles from the Feds. Bloomberg's stupid stings were done to publicize the problem. Yet, instead of demanding the feds crack down, people scream at Bloomberg.

NICS records are destroyed 24 hours after the check is approved which hurts law enforcement from tracking and identifying strawmen buyers.

You and others keep saying that it is for the feds to purse, not local enforcement. Well, that is what Bloomberg and other mayors and police departments have been yelling about for all these years. The feds are not doing it. So, local mayors, and P.D.s have said, if you aren't going to do it, then give us the tools to do it.


are you looking to arrest straw purchasers or shut down dealers for selling to people who later on break the law? everything you just said contradicts itself. ATF does not withhold any trace data from law enforcement if they are actually investigating a crime, and that trace data will show every legal transfer of a firearm through dealers, including the dealer of the initial sale.

Bloomberg isn't trying to catch and arrest the people who are buying and reselling the guns illegally. What he wants is to bring civil suits against gun dealers for selling guns legally to people who passed a NICS check. This is exactly the type of unjustified and frivolous garbage that the Tiahrt amendment is there to prevent. What the mayors want to do is immoral and illegal, and does nothing to stop the actual problem. The feds aren't pursuing what Bloomy and his cronies want because it isn't illegal for gun dealers to sell guns to people who pass a NICS check.

you, sir, are either grossly misinformed or a liar.
 
2012-04-12 03:25:31 PM  
Just note that if you support gun control or eliminating self defense protections, you're siding with one of the most evil men in United States history. You should think about that for a second
 
2012-04-12 04:12:27 PM  
Shawn Tyson doesn't like armed victims, agrees with Mayor Bloomberg.

i.dailymail.co.uk

Also thinks he looks like Obama's son more than Trayvon.
 
2012-04-12 04:35:40 PM  

Biv: there is even on juror with a brain there is no way he'll get convicted.....


The trial will be in Florida, right? You know, ...Florida.
 
2012-04-12 04:56:42 PM  

cybernia: NICS records are destroyed 24 hours after the check is approved which hurts law enforcement from tracking and identifying strawmen buyers.


Immaterial. The 4473 forms are kept for 20 years. Destroying the NICS records does nothing to prevent traces.
 
2012-04-12 05:23:40 PM  
No matter how many gun laws you pass, Criminals will *always* get their hands on guns, because they are criminals.

Why shouldn't we have guns to protect ourselves from the criminals?

Especially because the criminals have Better guns than the cops?

This whole idea of gun control Increases crime, it doesn't decrease it.

Imagine what would happen in Texas if every adult over the age of 25 in Texas carried a gun. Crime would disappear in Texas. Same as anywhere else.
 
2012-04-12 05:39:28 PM  

garandman1a: Zimmermann, if the trial is fair, cannot claim self defense "that he was in fear of his life" BECAUSE OF Stand Your Ground laws. The second he went after Martin, Martin and ONLY Martin is protected by Stand Your Ground.


You need to read up on Florida Self-Defense law. If, as all evidence so far indicates, Martin had the upper hand in the fight, and was hitting Zimmerman's head against the pavement hard enough to cause the wounds we saw on the video, even if Zimmerman started it, he can still claim self-defense if he couldn't get away from Martin, which it appears from what we know that he couldn't. Go read Florida Statute 776.041.

"Stand Your Ground", despite all the media hoopla, doesn't apply: Either Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor, and thus is going to claim self-defense under 776.041 2(a), or Martin was the initial physical aggressor, and common law self-defense applies.
 
2012-04-12 05:47:44 PM  
Why should I, as a law abiding citizen, have to determine the intent of someone who forced entry into my home and does not have my permission to be there? Is that where we want to be as a society? We want criminals to be allowed to break into our homes with no threat of the homeowner defending himself?
As a former police officer I can clearly articulate why I shot someone forcing entry into my home. I don't even have to see a weapon. It is a safe assumption that anyone forcing entry into my home is doing so with intent to commit a property crime or a violent crime. It is also a safe assumption that the person may become violent when I encounter them. I do not have to wait for them to physically assault me or my family. I am in my home. If you choose to break in, that is where your right's end. People should not be able to sue for injuries they sustain in the commission of a crime for the simple reason that had they not chosen to commit a crime, they wouldn't be injured (or dead). On the street if someone threatens me with their hand in their pocket should I ask them to show me they are actually armed? Should I have to surrender my money/keys/etc because the we don't want criminals to be injured or killed? Bottom line is we have the right to defend ourselves if we have reason to fear imminent bodily injury or death. I thing all of my scenarios meet that criteria and that they would pass the "reasonable person" test.
 
2012-04-12 07:38:03 PM  

Kit Fister: BigBooper: umad: BigBooper: Spade: BigBooper: However, there should still be a reasonable belief that the home owner or his family was in danger before using deadly force.


There was an unknown guy illegally inside my house.

There, that's where the danger bit comes from.

And that mentality is why your more likely to shoot your spouse or kid by accident in the middle of the night than you are a home invader. The ability to use lethal force is an awesome responsibility. Me, I chose to figure out what the fark is going on before I blast at a shadow that moves in the dark. And if some idiot is in my house, but is running for an exit? I feel no need or reason to execute someone for breaking into my house. Because if you shoot someone in the back while they are running away from you, that's exactly what your doing.

It's an awesome responsibility that should still be left in the hands of the people. Just because a few people will be idiots is no reason to tie everybody elses' hands behind their backs. Anti-gunners are just too damn eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Having laws that are to vague, and make a homeowner nearly unprosecutable when that home owner does something obviously negligent only strengthens the anti gun position. I'm in favor of self defense, I realize that the police do not protect people, they arrest people for committing crimes. However, we can go from an "obligation to retreat" to a form of the castle doctrine that simply goes too far. Our enemies will seize on every incident to not only repeal self defense laws, but to also attack gun ownership itself. You and I both know that the media will sensationalize every single accidental shooting. We have to leave law enforcement and prosecutors the tools to go after those who cross the line. If we don't we will be in worse shape than when we started.

So, instead of requiring people to use their own good judgement, we should legislate everything down to the smallest extent, and account for every possible outcome?

Seriously?

The laws SHOULD be fairly vague/overarching, because in cases where it's not clear that the law applies, the person should be investigated, charged if need be, and convicted if warranted by a jury. Laws are not intended to be hard absolutes.


No, you are quite wrong. What you advocate there is basically the bread and butter for every oppressive government ever.

In fact, vague laws are one of the few things that tend to be regularly ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS and thankfully so.

Jesus farking christ I seriously hope you are trolling, because your comment is chilling.
 
2012-04-12 07:42:54 PM  
You know who else liked gun control? All in favor, raise your right hand!

saintsagainsttyranny.com

/Should have been Godwin'd earlier
/Hot like the fires of hell
 
2012-04-12 07:58:36 PM  
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is launching a national campaign against gun laws that he's says "justify civilian gun play."

See these guys? These guys are civilians.

www.cryosites.com

Cops are farking civilians. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
 
2012-04-12 08:29:33 PM  
I don't get it.

You fear your government and your cops, so you should have guns.

You fear the guys who have guns, so you should have guns.

You fear someone taking away your guns, so you should have guns.

Which means MORE people have guns, which gives you more reason to be scared.

Maybe the solution is not to have guns, but to stop being scared.
 
2012-04-12 08:52:47 PM  

towatchoverme: Maybe the solution is not to have guns, but to stop being scared.


I like to shoot, so I should have guns.

I like to have tools that I hope never to have to use, so I should have guns.

I like that my government doesn't know who it would have to disarm to prevent rebellion, so I should have guns.

Maybe the solution is not to buy guns if you don't want them.
 
2012-04-12 09:03:15 PM  

stevarooni: I like that my government doesn't know who it would have to disarm to prevent rebellion, so I should have guns.


Gotta love how so many people in the world's greatest democracy are scared absolutely shiatless by their own government.

It's no accident that it was my very first point.

Y'all have paranoia down to an art form.
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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