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.

(Inside Bay Area)   Knock knock. Who's there? Home Invasion. Home invasion who? Home inva...powpowpowpowpow   (insidebayarea.com) divider line 321
    More: Fail, Hayward Police Department  
•       •       •

16615 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2014 at 1:47 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-10 04:47:02 PM

anuran: Absolutely despise the Beretta 92. The weird three-stage trigger pull is an acquired taste not worth acquiring.


AFSP augie-doggie many years back. I learned to like it,the Beretta always felt right in my hands, and I was a decent shot with it. Denied Expert ribbon with it due to (*cough* being an augie *cough*) completing qualification in the rain, the rain obscured the target therefore my shooting might have been a fluke.
 
2014-02-10 04:49:34 PM

StopLurkListen: You can teach kids firearm safety at the range, but a gun at home, where they could have unlimited access at any time ... and friends who might not have had the same training ... Gun locks, gun safes reduce but don't prevent everything.


Then you aren't using them correctly.
 
2014-02-10 04:49:53 PM

Boojum2k: Deep Contact: 2 notches on the front door. Nice.

Little silhouettes would look better.


img0.etsystatic.com
 
2014-02-10 04:50:06 PM

meyerkev: StopLurkListen: b) The resident ... lives in "an attached structure" of a two-bedroom home? ...would that be the garage?

It's very, very common for rich Asian people in this area to create a separate studio apartment attached to the house for the grandparents to live in in their old age.  (I'm guessing there's a name for this, but I don't know what it is).


It's called a "Granny Flat"
 
2014-02-10 04:50:20 PM

Dimensio: Darth_Lukecash: The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue.

Rights are by their nature a property of individuals. The concept of a "collective" right is nonsensical. The ACLU is, therefore, incorrect.


This.

* Collective rights means "We have the right".
* We means "a set containing I".
* A set containing I has a right.
* I have a right.
* I do not have the right, because it is a collective right.
* Therefore, the right is not collective.

/Besides, if it's an individual right, then you can, under great need, deny that right to a set of individuals while leaving me my rights.
 
2014-02-10 04:52:22 PM

AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended

Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.


The ACLU is simply acknowledging that rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States are not necessarily the final word on Constitutionality, a position held by many truly great intellectual minds. Such as Senator Rand Paul.
 
2014-02-10 04:52:51 PM

Boojum2k: anuran: Absolutely despise the Beretta 92. The weird three-stage trigger pull is an acquired taste not worth acquiring.

AFSP augie-doggie many years back. I learned to like it,the Beretta always felt right in my hands, and I was a decent shot with it. Denied Expert ribbon with it due to (*cough* being an augie *cough*) completing qualification in the rain, the rain obscured the target therefore my shooting might have been a fluke.


As I said, that was just our experience. If it's the gun for you, it's the gun for you, and I'd have gladly made you a really good deal when we sold ours.
 
2014-02-10 04:53:30 PM

anuran: There I Was:

Referendum restricting handguns was passed in 2005 but was struck down by courts before it could go into effect.  As an added bonus, the city of San Francisco was compelled to pay $380,000 to the NRA and other plaintiffs to cover their costs of litigating Proposition H.

Ineffective balm for assholes costs the city a lot of money. Who knew?


You are too late. I have already stated a Preparation H joke.
 
2014-02-10 04:55:43 PM

meyerkev: Dimensio: Darth_Lukecash: The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue.

Rights are by their nature a property of individuals. The concept of a "collective" right is nonsensical. The ACLU is, therefore, incorrect.

This.

* Collective rights means "We have the right".
* We means "a set containing I".
* A set containing I has a right.
* I have a right.
* I do not have the right, because it is a collective right.
* Therefore, the right is not collective.

/Besides, if it's an individual right, then you can, under great need, deny that right to a set of individuals while leaving me my rights.


*cough* bullshiat *cough*

Try this quote on for size:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,  "
 
2014-02-10 04:58:20 PM

AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended

Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.


And if you read the decision, it was 9-0 on the right being an Individual right.   The 5/4 Split came on whether the DC laws violated that right.
 
2014-02-10 04:59:37 PM

RightWingWacko: AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?


Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended

Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.

And if you read the decision, it was 9-0 on the right being an Individual right.   The 5/4 Split came on whether the DC laws violated that right.



media.giphy.com

 
2014-02-10 05:01:10 PM

darch: Galloping Galoshes: As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.

As a cop I DEFINITELY would want to see more information on this. There's a LOT of holes in this account.


Almost as many as in the victim :)
 
2014-02-10 05:01:46 PM

Fatty McFatcheeks: Since this happened in the Bay Area, I am sure the home owner now faces murder charges and weapons charges.


Not to mention the civil lawsuits that will be brought against him by his victims.
 
2014-02-10 05:06:33 PM

Calmamity: But remember, only the police should have guns.


and you should call the police and wait for them to arrive.  because the Supreme Court has already said that the police are not there to strictly protect you.
 
2014-02-10 05:07:04 PM

Road Rash: Jim_Callahan: Road Rash: Not unless you're in a militia.

A militia is by definition not government-controlled (or in the case of state militias, not federally controlled), so by that logic you  still can't restrict the ownership of guns by private individuals, because that would de-facto be banning militias.

Note the amendment doesn't say "only state militias (in modern parlance, the national guard units)" it just says 'militias'.  A well-regulated militia means a group of armed, private citizens that are well-trained in the use of their arms... so even if you're going with it being a prerequisite clause... it's still saying that the government can't make any laws preventing citizens from forming, essentially, their own paramilitary groups.

Being able to buy guns and not be oppressed by the government over it... is a prerequisite for the existence of a militia.   So... even by your own logic, your conclusions fail.

// States likewise can't restrict gun sales beyond the usual restrictions on enumerated rights for the same reasons the 1st amendment expands to apply to their regulation of religion and the press.


My conclusions don't fail - the ACLU's do. That's their position, not mine. I was merely letting a previous poster know that the ACLU is no friend of an individula's right to keep and bear arms.


Oh, please.  The ACLU is wrong on the 2d Amendment, but they're right on the rest of them.  And it's not like they a) go around grabbing guns, or b) go around cheering when the Due Process Clause gets gutted... like the NRA did under Bush.

I'd give the NRA some points for coming to their senses, but I think it's only because there's a Dem in the Oval Office.  Put another R in there, they'll bend right over again.

No Due Process = No Rights At All.
 
2014-02-10 05:14:20 PM

Boojum2k: Kahabut: Sure, if you don't mind hand loading single shot BP rifles.

So, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to TV, radio, or the internet?


And the 4th doesn't apply to phone records, email etc.
 
2014-02-10 05:39:08 PM

AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended

Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.



People still biatch about the 2000 elections. You think 6 years is gonna satisfy them?
 
2014-02-10 05:47:40 PM
And now the nappy headed dead dude's family will sue the shiat out of the homeowner, and win all their money, and house, and cars. Because fark you for defending your home thats why.
 
2014-02-10 05:55:43 PM

meyerkev: Dimensio: Darth_Lukecash: The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue.

Rights are by their nature a property of individuals. The concept of a "collective" right is nonsensical. The ACLU is, therefore, incorrect.

This.

* Collective rights means "We have the right".
* We means "a set containing I".
* A set containing I has a right.
* I have a right.
* I do not have the right, because it is a collective right.
* Therefore, the right is not collective.

/Besides, if it's an individual right, then you can, under great need, deny that right to a set of individuals while leaving me my rights.


The Soviet Union did a great job of looking after collective rights, because collective rights is bullshiat terminology fit for communist dictators and theocrats. I think the ACLU has seriously hurt their credibility by cherry picking which amendments to pursue as individual rights.

The best approach is to propose a new amendment, because the meaning of the current one is well established.
 
2014-02-10 05:56:11 PM
 
2014-02-10 06:10:50 PM

Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?


*scrolling up*  Huh... it seems to be just you.
 
2014-02-10 06:13:03 PM

Dragonflew: *scrolling up* Huh... it seems to be just you.


As opposed to the previous thread on another defensive shooting:

http://www.fark.com/comments/8135844/Climbing-through-your-ex-girlfr ie nds-bedroom-window-slapping-her-around-Thats-a-shootin-paralyzing-comp liments-of-her-mom

Yesterday.
 
2014-02-10 06:51:27 PM

Boojum2k: Dragonflew: *scrolling up* Huh... it seems to be just you.

As opposed to the previous thread on another defensive shooting:

http://www.fark.com/comments/8135844/Climbing-through-your-ex-girlfr ie nds-bedroom-window-slapping-her-around-Thats-a-shootin-paralyzing-comp liments-of-her-mom

Yesterday.


I checked that article out, there is not enough evidence/detail to draw conclusions either way.
 
2014-02-10 06:52:15 PM

AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous - it's the 5-4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the Malitia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended

Yes I did read it.  SCOTUS' interpretation immediately becomes law of the land.  Period.  It's been 6 years.  How long do they need to debate it?  They are not right because there is now Supreme Court precedent.  It doesn't matter what the split was the decision has been made.


Except if the Supreme Court changes it's mind again. ACLU based its interpetation on the 1930s Miller ruling from the Supreme Court. In fact The Supreme Court has historically made bad decisions, they later reconsidered.

ACLU can argue whaterver they want, the fact remains, they are reviewing their policies on this issue.
 
2014-02-10 06:53:45 PM
The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.
 
2014-02-10 06:57:25 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Except if the Supreme Court changes it's mind again. ACLU based its interpetation on the 1930s Miller ruling from the Supreme Court. In fact The Supreme Court has historically made bad decisions, they later reconsidered.

ACLU can argue whaterver they want, the fact remains, they are reviewing their policies on this issue


If SCOTUS reverses, which is HIGHLY unlikely, they could then adjust their position accordingly.  The fact remains that they are dragging their feet when this is the law of the land.   It doesn't look good and says something about both their integrity and their objectivity.
 
2014-02-10 07:04:18 PM

AngryDragon: Darth_Lukecash: Except if the Supreme Court changes it's mind again. ACLU based its interpetation on the 1930s Miller ruling from the Supreme Court. In fact The Supreme Court has historically made bad decisions, they later reconsidered.

ACLU can argue whaterver they want, the fact remains, they are reviewing their policies on this issue

If SCOTUS reverses, which is HIGHLY unlikely, they could then adjust their position accordingly.  The fact remains that they are dragging their feet when this is the law of the land.   It doesn't look good and says something about both their integrity and their objectivity.


They are going to make a good, legal argument that will stand on the courts recent ruling.

That's going to take a while. They may have to change their position.

Personally, they would have a better chance to regulate arms (background checks, psychological evaluation, advanced training, and open carry-no concealed) that banishing guns.
 
2014-02-10 07:14:08 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Personally, they would have a better chance to regulate arms (background checks, psychological evaluation, advanced training, and open carry-no concealed) that banishing guns.


Yep, especially since the 3D printer revolution is coming.  If you don't think that working guns are going to be middle-adopters at worst, I've got a bridge to sell you.

So we get to deal with a world in which any person can, with a few minutes lag time, produce a gun in the safety and privacy of their own home.  There's ways to prevent that, but *creepy security state dystopia*, and just having laws never actually does anything without realistic enforcement.  In THAT world, the "gun nut" people (I have a gun, and sort of know what I'm doing with it.  Just in case.  Because you never know, and I am not a mass murderer) sound WAY more sane (or at least realistic).

/Personally, I'm holding out for 3D-printed bespoke clothing.  In shoe length, I'm an 11, but in shoe width, I'm a 14 4E wide because that's the smallest size I fit in (in part because my toes don't bend in).  Someone's going to become a billionaire, and I'm going to get shoes that fit.  See.  Trickle-down works.
 
2014-02-10 07:17:31 PM

Darth_Lukecash: They are going to make a good, legal argument that will stand on the courts recent ruling.

That's going to take a while. They may have to change their position.

Personally, they would have a better chance to regulate arms (background checks, psychological evaluation, advanced training, and open carry-no concealed) that banishing guns


The ACLU adopted the right to abortion as a platform in 1967.  Roe v Wade was ruled in 1973.  6 years after the platform change.

Heller was ruled in 2008.  As of 2014, the ACLU is still debating their position.  6 years after the ruling.

A 12 year difference in taking action.  But there's no bias against the 2nd amendment...
 
2014-02-10 07:20:53 PM

nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.


Only in the minds of entitled right wing twits. The militia was originally supposed to be the body of citizen-soldiers available for national defense. That's why the Organized and Unorganized Militias are those wearing a uniform and men between (it keeps changing) 17 and 45 who are capable of serving. It's related to the reason why the Navy is on a two year budget cycle and the Army is Constitutionally required to go back and beg Congress every year.
 
2014-02-10 07:42:22 PM
I wonder if it was a gun fwee zone.
 
2014-02-10 08:44:45 PM

cig-mkr: I own and believe in guns, but I don't think I'd ever want to kill someone in my house. I would if need be, but really wouldn't want to. A gun is like a jack in your car, don't ever want to use one but will if I have to.


yeah, I mean it's going to be YOUR couch and rug the guy's brains are scattered across.  Who wants to deal with that kind of cleanup, amirite?

Fun fact:  the survivor guy can now be charged for murder for the death of his buddy by the homeowner!
 
2014-02-10 09:05:10 PM

Silly_Sot: MrSplifferton: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

About as soon as your other fantasy of farking Amanda Knox happens.

TWO!
I GOT TWO!


Don't be so proud of yourself, these two are low hanging fruit.
 
2014-02-10 09:10:54 PM

DarwinianReject: Silly_Sot: How long before liberal outrage demands the resident be prosecuted for daring to have a firearm and use it in legitimate self-defense?

That part usually comes right after the "he-was-a-good-kid-and-was-turning-his-life-around" sob story from the parents of the recently departed.


You forgot the part about the "He dreamed of being a pediatrician" part, even though he had dropped out of high school at 16 and read at a 3rd grade level.
 
2014-02-10 09:18:02 PM

Galloping Galoshes: As a pro-gun rights farker, I say confidently that there's not enough info in that story to draw any conclusion, other than there's a dead guy leaking on the rug.


might be hardwood, or even tile...  could have fallen on a pile of clothes...
 
2014-02-10 09:22:47 PM

COMALite J: Headso: AngryDragon: onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.

you could always pull up your bootstraps and start your own law firm run on non tax-deductible donations if you don't like the cases they take up.
Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support..


Very infrequently a local ACLU chapter will support a gun case but the stated opinion of the National ACLU is that they are against the Second Amendment.
 
2014-02-10 09:37:50 PM

lordjupiter: A man is dead under suspicious circumstances.  Let's show some respect and not politicize what could be a simple, unavoidable tragedy not unlike those that occur every day.

The deceased could've been selling encyclopedias door to door only to be gunned down by someone of unknown mental state.  We just don't know.

Wait until all the facts are in before coming to any conclusions.  No one has been convicted of anything.  A family is grieving.


Don't worry, the sad trombone will be there to comfort them.
 
2014-02-10 09:59:45 PM

Boojum2k: Kahabut: The first doesn't specifically mention any form of media

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

If it's not you talking unaided or using ink, it ain't covered, by your blackpowder analogy.

Look, you made the stupid statement. Let it go man, 1st rule of holes.


When they use that argument, they are always so surprised when it backfires on them.  Really, how stupid do you have to be, not to see it coming.

/ Don't own a gun.
 
2014-02-10 10:02:49 PM

zimbomba63: When they use that argument, they are always so surprised when it backfires on them. Really, how stupid do you have to be, not to see it coming.


Usually they are pretty stupid, but he said he was joking and after reading his other comments he's not one of the anti-gun crazies.
 
2014-02-10 10:13:57 PM

COMALite J: Headso: AngryDragon: onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, the ACLU are not a part of those people.  Sad.

you could always pull up your bootstraps and start your own law firm run on non tax-deductible donations if you don't like the cases they take up.
Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support..


False. The aclu's stance is the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right, despite holding all other rights as individual ones. This is in direct contradiction to the heller decision. The NRA defends the 2nd differently.
 
2014-02-10 10:16:08 PM

Doom MD: False. The aclu's stance is the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right, despite holding all other rights as individual ones. This is in direct contradiction to the heller decision. The NRA defends the 2nd differently


I think COMALite J wins the award for most times being called out and kicked around for saying something stupid in a thread. I've seen multiple different versions of your post over the last several hours.
 
2014-02-10 11:35:15 PM
hey, I told the in-laws, alway call first, never just drop in unannounced.  look what happened.
 
2014-02-11 12:53:52 AM

Boojum2k: Doom MD: False. The aclu's stance is the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right, despite holding all other rights as individual ones. This is in direct contradiction to the heller decision. The NRA defends the 2nd differently

I think COMALite J wins the award for most times being called out and kicked around for saying something stupid in a thread. I've seen multiple different versions of your post over the last several hours.


Aye, I should've scrolled more before replying.
 
2014-02-11 01:02:45 AM

Doom MD: Aye, I should've scrolled more before replying.


No, no, it's good. Should be a learning experience for him :)
 
2014-02-11 01:04:20 AM

Headso: umad: Headso: playing the victim in the way you are doing here

Say what now? I don't give a fark what your stance is on the issue. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Headso: I've never seen a thread on fark about a home invasion where it was "filled" with those kinds of comments

And you're full of shiat.

oh yeah, even though this thread has none of that threads about home invasions are "filled" with those kinds of comments, it's just you know, today is an off day so there's none but the next one will be back to being "filled" with them. My bad if your whiny comment wasn't based in partisanship as the other whiny comments with the same theme that are based in partisanship.


I don't know if you're messing with him or serious but that seemingly implausible scenario is absolutely true. While they are inexplicably absent today there are usually loads of "people>stuff" running around in these threads.
 
2014-02-11 01:07:20 AM

notatrollorami: don't know if you're messing with him or serious but that seemingly implausible scenario is absolutely true. While they are inexplicably absent today there are usually loads of "people>stuff" running around in these threads.


I have empty soda cans I'd value more than the life of a home invader. Don't do the crime if you want any more time.
 
2014-02-11 04:30:43 AM

Galloping Galoshes: There are a number of third-amendment cases pending, where SWAT teams entered homes without permission or warrant to get better targeting on adjacent properties.

Interesting! And I agree that such should be contested. Paramilitarized law enforcement kills innocent people and needs to be much more strongly regulated at the very least.

Darth_Lukecash: AngryDragon: COMALite J: Actually, the ACLU does indeed support all ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights. They just haven't had to take many cases involving quartering of soldiers in private homes in peacetime. As for the Second Amendment, they don't prioritize that only because there are other organizations such as the NRA that focus on that one, leaving them more resources to devote to the other nine. Were it not for the NRA, the ACLU would also be supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in legal cases that they support

I really hate to burst your bubble.

"In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in  D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment."

Did you even read that link? what they wrote?

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

The sad thing is, the ACLU is right on this issue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country that had no standing Military. That the populace would form an army if one was required. An earlier Supreme Court Ruling said that it was a collective right, not a an individual right.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't Unanimous ― it's the 5−4 politically charged split we've come to expect. All because five conservatives declared that a comma meant the M(i)litia part was an example, not the requirement that the framers intended.

Actually, that cute little girl in the commercial is appropriate here: "Why not both?" The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual Right for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a "collective Right." No other Right mentioned in the Bill of Rights is interpreted as being "collective," even though many of them use the same language: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,..." does not mean that individual persons don't have such a right.

The Militia as understood by the Framers is composed of the body of the people. This is not opinion. Three consecutive drafts of what would become the Second Amendment say that outright: "A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people being the best security of a free State,...". The only reason that the bolded text was removed from the final version was to save space, because it was considered redundant ― inherent in the very word "Militia"! (Note also that the security that the Militia provides to a free State was upgraded from being merely "...the best security..." to being "...necessary to the security....")

That said, the reason for the Right was indeed the Militia, to defend the nation. It was not to provide a defense against a federal (or state or local for that matter) government turned tyranny, contrary to right-wing post-Cincinnati Revolt of 1977 NRA nutcases like Wayne LaPierre and their fabricated quotes from Founders. That said, the Militia was not a requirement for the Right. It was a reason for it, and the most important reason in the mind of the Framers, but not a requirement. But neither was it a mere example as SCOTUS ruled in Heller.

Service in the Militia was a responsibility. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was primarily to facilitate one's participation in this responsibility. It was a responsibility as well as a Right to keep and maintain small hand-wieldable weaponry ("arms" as opposed to "ordnance" such as canon in those days, or artillery, bombers, tanks, etc. in modern times ― those were the responsibility of the army, which didn't exist in peacetime, thus the need for the Militia to act as a first and last line of defense until the army could be formed and mobilized once Congress declared war).

At any rate, my post was merely my memory of what the ACLU website used to say on the subject. I hadn't re-checked it since Heller and was unaware of how they disagreed with it, nor with their ludicrous claim of the right being a "collective" one (no such thing).  The responsibility is collective (like jury duty ―). The right is individual ― but not because of what SCOTUS ruled in Heller.
 
2014-02-11 06:06:36 AM

nymersic: The Second Amendment isn't there for you to fight off robbers.  It's there for you to fight off your government.  That's what the colonial militias were busy doing in the Revolution, if you remember.

Stop citing these things as Second Amendment success stories.  This argument has distracted people from the real purpose for so long that we generally forget why it's considered a "right" in the first place.


What, in your legally acceptable arsenal will stop a tank?  How about a drone?  How about an Apache?  No?  Nothing?

What was that you were saying again?
 
2014-02-11 06:12:41 AM

onyxruby: cman: If only people were so rabidly pro-union as they are pro-second amendment we wouldn't have these robberies as often

Poverty begets crime. Drugs begets poverty. Misery begets drugs.

Some of us are pro union and pro gun. Quite a few more people than I think you realize. There are even people that support all 10 rights in the Bill of Rights.


Shocking, isn't it??
 
2014-02-11 08:00:12 AM
As a detective for Scotland Yard, 3 time biathlon champ, and a fairly decent break dancer I think this story needs fresher beats.
 
Displayed 50 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report