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.

(Politico)   GA lawmakers introduce bill to protect gun owners who "accidentally" carry a gun into an airport. "A lot of people carry a weapon. It's almost like it's just a second nature to them. And sometimes they forget where they have {it}"   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, carrying a firearm, Fort Worth International Airport, Chicago O'Hare, x-ray machines, airports  
•       •       •

2604 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2014 at 12:25 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-02-18 01:40:35 PM  

what_now: So imagine if you will, an innocent man traveling to a business meeting in Cleveland. It's been a busy day, and he's rushed and rather stressed. He gets to the airport, takes off his shoes, puts his toiletries in a bucket and then realizes he's left a loaded gun in his carry on.

Now should this man, this a law abiding, upstanding citizen, this responsible gun owner be charged for this crime? OF COURSE NOT? It's a silly mistake. One anyone could make.

Now.

Imagine he's black.


cbschicago.files.wordpress.com

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/04/24/state-sen-donne-trotter-plead s- guilty-to-bringing-gun-to-ohare/
 
2014-02-18 01:40:50 PM  

mbillips: NkThrasher: mbillips: I can see you've never carried a gun. I had to wear an M9 around for a year when I was in Iraq (a more useless paperweight was never inflicted on anyone; I worked in an office in the Green Zone, so if the hajjis got inside the wire to the point where I had to shoot at them, I was dead, pistol or no). Within a month, you forget you have the thing on. I left mine lying around (unloaded, because the military isn't as stupid as most Armed Citizens) more than once when I took it off to work out.

...I can see you were in need of corrective training.  Your failure to properly follow lawful orders is hardly a good argument against requiring citizens to properly follow the law.

I'm OK with requiring them to follow the law. I'm just saying they shouldn't be criminally prosecuted for disobeying this particular law without criminal intent (which is a requirement for conviction of any criminal offense, btw). Taking a gun to the airport, unless a reasonable person would conclude you had criminal intent in doing so, should be a civil offense punishable with a fine. My personal experience is that the sort of people who think they need to carry a handgun around all the time reasonably could wind up at the airport with a gun without meaning to break any laws. You can give them a ticket for that, but you shouldn't arrest them and charge them with a crime.


Certainly they don't *mean* to break the law, however that is very different than the reality that they *are* breaking the law, and a law that is not unreasonable.  Attempting to carry a firearm past a security checkpoint, with plenty of signs saying "Hey dumbass, don't bring weapons in here", and forty someodd years of it being the case that firearms are unlawful to take past the checkpoint, whether it is intentional or unintentional, is ridiculous.  It flies in the face of any claims about "Responsible" ownership, a "Responsible" owner would not do that, it makes you expressly "Irresponsible" to attempt it, even if it is unintentional.

As has been cited repeatedly in thread, and from TFA:

Those convicted of a misdemeanor for carrying a gun into the secured areas of Georgia's airports could face a $1,000 fine or up to a year of probation or prison time. However, charges are dismissed against most first-time offenders if they attend gun safety classes, surrender the firearm they illegally brought to the checkpoint and stay out of further trouble. They do not lose their license to carry a weapon in Georgia. TSA officials can separately fine them up to $11,000.

The system already accepts that a person can make a mistake and not need excessive punishment for it.  It identifies that a person screwed up, may need retraining, and provides a punishment of confiscation of the firearm.
 
2014-02-18 01:41:05 PM  

what_now: So imagine if you will, an innocent man traveling to a business meeting in Cleveland. It's been a busy day, and he's rushed and rather stressed. He gets to the airport, takes off his shoes, puts his toiletries in a bucket and then realizes he's left a loaded gun in his carry on.

Now should this man, this a law abiding, upstanding citizen, this responsible gun owner be charged for this crime? OF COURSE NOT? It's a silly mistake. One anyone could make.

Now.

Imagine he's black.

Muslim!11!
 
2014-02-18 01:41:56 PM  

lennavan: mbillips:Didja notice how all those other things hurt people? But carrying a gun to the airport didn't hurt anyone? Look up intentional tort sometime.

Wow, I'll admit, I'm surprised by that fact.  Today I learned no one has ever been hurt by a gun at an airport.  Fark.com is such a wealth of truthiness!


No one was ever hurt by someone merely carrying a gun to an airport. They were hurt by someone taking a gun out and shooting it. The Georgia law is meant to address ONLY the former. Georgia law already allows you to carry a gun in the airport up to the security gates, anyway. There are probably dozens of goofballs at Hartsfield right now with concealed handguns, picking up or dropping off someone.
 
2014-02-18 01:44:15 PM  

Private_Citizen: I'm with the majority here: if you can't remember to leave your gun home before you fly out, then you don't deserve to carry a gun.

On a different, but gun related note, I keep hearing "an armed society is a polite society", but evidence is disproving that. It seems that carrying a gun has empowered countless azzholes to truly be themselves in all sorts of situations.

Three quarters of etiquette is about defusing situations or avoiding giving offense. To many gun owners seem to think that carrying a gun exempts them from those rules of polite society. They feel entirely free to give as much offense as they want to, and they don't feel obligated to back down, apologize or swallow their pride. Ever.

Instead of becoming more polite, the arming of society had made it belligerent and confrontational.

/real life trolls and itgs rejoice! With a gun, you're a God of annoyance made corporeal!


Yeah, those elaborate rituals of courtesy that were practiced when men carried swords and were expected to be touchy about their honor were pretty much useless in controlling bullies who were good at sword fighting. An armed society is a generally polite (except for bullies) society, but also usually a VIOLENT society.
 
2014-02-18 01:44:47 PM  

mbillips: Airport security isn't there to keep guns or knives or bottles of water off planes



mbillips: Airport security isn't there to keep guns or knives or bottles of water off planes


mbillips: Airport security isn't there to keep guns or knives or bottles of water off planes



mbillips: Airport security isn't there to keep guns or knives or bottles of water off planes
 
2014-02-18 01:47:42 PM  

The_Sponge: I forgot the name of the yahoo who said I was an irresponsible gun owner because I refuse to register mine.


Don't ever change sponge. Mr. 'The 2nd amendment is a very important right but I can't explain why.'

You still don't understand that in the hypothetical scenario where registration is law, that if you chose not to, how that would make you irresponsible, by definition? Can't help you then. Maybe look up the definition of words?
 
2014-02-18 01:50:11 PM  

mbillips: lennavan: mbillips:Didja notice how all those other things hurt people? But carrying a gun to the airport didn't hurt anyone? Look up intentional tort sometime.

Wow, I'll admit, I'm surprised by that fact.  Today I learned no one has ever been hurt by a gun at an airport.  Fark.com is such a wealth of truthiness!

No one was ever hurt by someone merely carrying a gun to an airport. They were hurt by someone taking a gun out and shooting it. The Georgia law is meant to address ONLY the former. Georgia law already allows you to carry a gun in the airport up to the security gates, anyway. There are probably dozens of goofballs at Hartsfield right now with concealed handguns, picking up or dropping off someone.


We might as well make it the same for bombs. Afterall, no one was ever hurt by a bomb that wasn't detonated. Pretty strange logic these people employ here. It's ALMOST as if they have one set of standards for things they like, selfishly, and another for everything else. ALMOST.
 
2014-02-18 01:53:09 PM  

mbillips: No one was ever hurt by someone merely carrying a gun to an airport. They were hurt by someone taking a gun out and shooting it.


So in your world view, someone taking a gun out and hijacking an airplane by merely threatening to shoot the gun isn't possible?  Well, that's certainly one point of view.
 
2014-02-18 01:53:35 PM  

The_Sponge: I forgot the name of the yahoo who said I was an irresponsible gun owner because I refuse to register mine.


Nothing says Responsible Gun Owner like flaunting the law.
 
2014-02-18 01:53:52 PM  

what_now: So imagine if you will, an innocent man traveling to a business meeting in Cleveland. It's been a busy day, and he's rushed and rather stressed. He gets to the airport, takes off his shoes, puts his toiletries in a bucket and then realizes he's left a loaded gun in his carry on.

Now should this man, this a law abiding, upstanding citizen, this responsible gun owner be charged for this crime? OF COURSE NOT? It's a silly mistake. One anyone could make.

Now.

Imagine he's black.


Or Arabic.
 
2014-02-18 01:54:27 PM  

dittybopper: Jocktopus: Stupid arguments are stupid.

People (in general) aren't "forgetting they have a gun."  They simply don't connect "carrying a gun" with "is illegal in the airport."

How many people do you think walk into a courthouse with their cellphone, or a small pocketknife?  Did they "forget they had a cellphone?"  No, they just neglected to make the mental connection between "jury duty" and "no cellphones."

Not only that, the majority of the airport guns seized were in their carry-on luggage, not in a holster on their person.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where you forget you are *WEARING* a gun, but much easier to imagine one where it's in a bag that you use for other purposes, and you forgot or missed it when packing for your trip.


Alright lets work that scenario for a second:

You are packing in a hurry, and forget your Colt defender is sitting in the bottom of your laptop bag as you hurried pack other shiat around it to make your flight.   Airport security misses it for whatever reason and you sucessfully  board your flight , while you are crusing at 30,000 fet you reach into your bag for your lap top and somehow accidentally snag the trigger pull on your Colt (which being the sort of irresponsible person who can;t keep track of their guns in the first place, you also carry with one in the chamber) *Bang* the airplane now has a hole in the fuselage and the cabin is experiencing rapid decompression as the pilot fights to keep the plane up

That's a hell of a lot of consequences for an "innocent mistake"    seems safer to make people make DAMN sure they aren;t carrying BEFORE tey get on the plane, neh?
 
2014-02-18 01:55:24 PM  

justtray: We might as well make it the same for bombs. Afterall, no one was ever hurt by a bomb that wasn't detonated. Pretty strange logic these people employ here. It's ALMOST as if they have one set of standards for things they like, selfishly, and another for everything else. ALMOST.


Because an indiscriminate bomb capable of perhaps destroying an aircraft, and which in any case is not an effective individual defensive weapon because of it's indiscriminate nature, is exactly the same thing as a firearm.

Do you really even *THINK* about what you post before you hit "Enter"?
 
2014-02-18 01:55:45 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: So all the thugs and terrorists can use this excuse now?


Works for him
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2014-02-18 01:56:05 PM  

NkThrasher: mbillips: NkThrasher: mbillips: I can see you've never carried a gun. I had to wear an M9 around for a year when I was in Iraq (a more useless paperweight was never inflicted on anyone; I worked in an office in the Green Zone, so if the hajjis got inside the wire to the point where I had to shoot at them, I was dead, pistol or no). Within a month, you forget you have the thing on. I left mine lying around (unloaded, because the military isn't as stupid as most Armed Citizens) more than once when I took it off to work out.

...I can see you were in need of corrective training.  Your failure to properly follow lawful orders is hardly a good argument against requiring citizens to properly follow the law.

I'm OK with requiring them to follow the law. I'm just saying they shouldn't be criminally prosecuted for disobeying this particular law without criminal intent (which is a requirement for conviction of any criminal offense, btw). Taking a gun to the airport, unless a reasonable person would conclude you had criminal intent in doing so, should be a civil offense punishable with a fine. My personal experience is that the sort of people who think they need to carry a handgun around all the time reasonably could wind up at the airport with a gun without meaning to break any laws. You can give them a ticket for that, but you shouldn't arrest them and charge them with a crime.

Certainly they don't *mean* to break the law, however that is very different than the reality that they *are* breaking the law, and a law that is not unreasonable.  Attempting to carry a firearm past a security checkpoint, with plenty of signs saying "Hey dumbass, don't bring weapons in here", and forty someodd years of it being the case that firearms are unlawful to take past the checkpoint, whether it is intentional or unintentional, is ridiculous.  It flies in the face of any claims about "Responsible" ownership, a "Responsible" owner would not do that, it makes you expressly "Irresponsible" to a ...


Being irresponsible is not a crime. If you DELIBERATELY flout the signs that say, "Hey, don't do this," then, yeah, you should be charged with a misdemeanor (or felony, depending on the actual danger you're posing to other people). But if you accidentally do something dumb, and no one is harmed by your action, why should you spend the night in jail? It's not like the proposed bill gives carte blanche to try to carry weapons through security, it just makes it a non-arresting offense if you can reasonably claim lack of intent. I'd be fine with pulling people's carry licenses and confiscating their guns (which the current law doesn't do EVEN IF YOU'RE CONVICTED MULTIPLE TIMES), but I'm not OK with jailing people who didn't intend to commit a crime, and did not hurt anyone.
 
2014-02-18 01:56:06 PM  

Latinwolf: what_now: So imagine if you will, an innocent man traveling to a business meeting in Cleveland. It's been a busy day, and he's rushed and rather stressed. He gets to the airport, takes off his shoes, puts his toiletries in a bucket and then realizes he's left a loaded gun in his carry on.

Now should this man, this a law abiding, upstanding citizen, this responsible gun owner be charged for this crime? OF COURSE NOT? It's a silly mistake. One anyone could make.

Now.

Imagine he's black.

Or Arabic.


Or Arablack.
 
2014-02-18 01:58:38 PM  

mbillips: Private_Citizen: I'm with the majority here: if you can't remember to leave your gun home before you fly out, then you don't deserve to carry a gun.

On a different, but gun related note, I keep hearing "an armed society is a polite society", but evidence is disproving that. It seems that carrying a gun has empowered countless azzholes to truly be themselves in all sorts of situations.

Three quarters of etiquette is about defusing situations or avoiding giving offense. To many gun owners seem to think that carrying a gun exempts them from those rules of polite society. They feel entirely free to give as much offense as they want to, and they don't feel obligated to back down, apologize or swallow their pride. Ever.

Instead of becoming more polite, the arming of society had made it belligerent and confrontational.

/real life trolls and itgs rejoice! With a gun, you're a God of annoyance made corporeal!

Yeah, those elaborate rituals of courtesy that were practiced when men carried swords and were expected to be touchy about their honor were pretty much useless in controlling bullies who were good at sword fighting. An armed society is a generally polite (except for bullies) society, but also usually a VIOLENT society.


The code of chivalry was supposed to control the little lordlings running around with too much testosterone and an overgrown sense of entitlement. As you pointed out, the code was not that successful, and eventually carrying swords was banned.

Most rules of etiquette/polite society are more concerned with making people feel comfortable, and not offending others than preventing stabbings.

But there is no new code of chivalry. Even the rules carry keep getting relaxed. And the rules of polite society? As I pointed out, to many people think caring a gun means they take no one's crap and they hand out as much as they want.

And that's why I believe arming society has made it far less polite.
 
2014-02-18 02:00:37 PM  

justtray: mbillips: lennavan: mbillips:Didja notice how all those other things hurt people? But carrying a gun to the airport didn't hurt anyone? Look up intentional tort sometime.

Wow, I'll admit, I'm surprised by that fact.  Today I learned no one has ever been hurt by a gun at an airport.  Fark.com is such a wealth of truthiness!

No one was ever hurt by someone merely carrying a gun to an airport. They were hurt by someone taking a gun out and shooting it. The Georgia law is meant to address ONLY the former. Georgia law already allows you to carry a gun in the airport up to the security gates, anyway. There are probably dozens of goofballs at Hartsfield right now with concealed handguns, picking up or dropping off someone.

We might as well make it the same for bombs. Afterall, no one was ever hurt by a bomb that wasn't detonated. Pretty strange logic these people employ here. It's ALMOST as if they have one set of standards for things they like, selfishly, and another for everything else. ALMOST.


The difference is, bombs are illegal to possess in most cases, and they have no legal purpose. Guns are completely legal to possess in Georgia and many people routinely carry them around. I DON'T CARRY A GUN, OR LIKE PEOPLE WHO DO. I also don't like living in a police state where people are arrested for looking at a cop wrong, or violating the rules of airport security theater.
 
2014-02-18 02:03:18 PM  

mbillips: lennavan: mbillips:Didja notice how all those other things hurt people? But carrying a gun to the airport didn't hurt anyone? Look up intentional tort sometime.

Wow, I'll admit, I'm surprised by that fact.  Today I learned no one has ever been hurt by a gun at an airport.  Fark.com is such a wealth of truthiness!

No one was ever hurt by someone merely carrying a gun to an airport. They were hurt by someone taking a gun out and shooting it. The Georgia law is meant to address ONLY the former. Georgia law already allows you to carry a gun in the airport up to the security gates, anyway. There are probably dozens of goofballs at Hartsfield right now with concealed handguns, picking up or dropping off someone.


guns do go off accidentially. a gun doing that ON anirplane from the bottom of a carryon could  kill a plane full of people.  it would be unlikley, but a bullet blowing out a window could be a very bad thing and cause complete cabin depressurization
 
2014-02-18 02:04:18 PM  

mbillips: Being irresponsible is not a crime. If you DELIBERATELY flout the signs that say, "Hey, don't do this," then, yeah, you should be charged with a misdemeanor (or felony, depending on the actual danger you're posing to other people). But if you accidentally do something dumb, and no one is harmed by your action, why should you spend the night in jail? It's not like the proposed bill gives carte blanche to try to carry weapons through security, it just makes it a non-arresting offense if you can reasonably claim lack of intent. I'd be fine with pulling people's carry licenses and confiscating their guns (which the current law doesn't do EVEN IF YOU'RE CONVICTED MULTIPLE TIMES), but I'm not OK with jailing people who didn't intend to commit a crime, and did not hurt anyone.


You are deliberately flouting the signs by doing it, even accidentally.  You should be asking yourself "Hey, I'm in a security line at an airport, I frequently carry a gun, am I carrying right now?  Where is my weapon?  Let me pat my jacket pocket where it frequently is in my normal life."  by not doing that you are deliberately failing to follow the law.

I get that you're arguing about proportional response/punishment based on intent.  But we have that already, the first time offender who intended to carry it past isn't going to get a slap on the wrist, safety class, and confiscation of the firearm.  The first time offender who did intend to carry it past is going to get the slap on the wrist.  The first night in jail is part of establishing which class of idiot you are, the intentionally idiotic, or the unintentionally.  In either case, you're an idiot that broke the law.
 
2014-02-18 02:05:23 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: The_Sponge: I forgot the name of the yahoo who said I was an irresponsible gun owner because I refuse to register mine.

Nothing says Responsible Gun Owner like flaunting the law.



Yeah!  That Rosa Parks should have known her place and moved to the back of the bus.
 
2014-02-18 02:07:24 PM  
lennavan

Guns have no legal purpose at airports.

It's entirely legal to carry a firearm in the airport in the vast majority of American states. You just can't take it through security checkpoints and beyond.
 
2014-02-18 02:09:29 PM  

BunkoSquad: dittybopper: What about in a bag you carry for other purposes (like car trips, etc.)?

Generally, that's what happens, not the one in the pocket, the one in the bag you use for other things besides airline flights.

I make sure there's no "too big bottle of contact lens solution" in that bag before I go to the airport, because I'm aware enough to know THAT I AM GOING TO THE AIRPORT


Well actually you can take the big bottle now, they eased up the rules for "medical supplies".  You just have to tell them it's there and they use this cool little chemical sniffer deal to make sure you're not carrying lava in there or something.
 
2014-02-18 02:10:32 PM  

dittybopper: justtray: We might as well make it the same for bombs. Afterall, no one was ever hurt by a bomb that wasn't detonated. Pretty strange logic these people employ here. It's ALMOST as if they have one set of standards for things they like, selfishly, and another for everything else. ALMOST.

Because an indiscriminate bomb capable of perhaps destroying an aircraft, and which in any case is not an effective individual defensive weapon because of it's indiscriminate nature, is exactly the same thing as a firearm.

Do you really even *THINK* about what you post before you hit "Enter"?


What would happen to a passenger aircraft, flying at a high altitude if someone accidentally shot a hole through the fuselage?

I say "accidentally" because we are also talking about the yokels that couldn't remember that they were carrying a firearm onto a plane.

But then the point is moot, because in both cases where an "accidental" bomb is brought through TSA and also the case where an accidental firearm is brought through-laws exist as a deterrent to promote responsible ownership of said bombs or guns.
 
2014-02-18 02:11:19 PM  

mbillips: The difference is, bombs are illegal to possess in most cases, and they have no legal purpose


Bombs have no legal purpose? Really?

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

worldonline.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com
 
2014-02-18 02:11:40 PM  

mbillips: justtray: mbillips: lennavan: mbillips:Didja notice how all those other things hurt people? But carrying a gun to the airport didn't hurt anyone? Look up intentional tort sometime.

Wow, I'll admit, I'm surprised by that fact.  Today I learned no one has ever been hurt by a gun at an airport.  Fark.com is such a wealth of truthiness!

No one was ever hurt by someone merely carrying a gun to an airport. They were hurt by someone taking a gun out and shooting it. The Georgia law is meant to address ONLY the former. Georgia law already allows you to carry a gun in the airport up to the security gates, anyway. There are probably dozens of goofballs at Hartsfield right now with concealed handguns, picking up or dropping off someone.

We might as well make it the same for bombs. Afterall, no one was ever hurt by a bomb that wasn't detonated. Pretty strange logic these people employ here. It's ALMOST as if they have one set of standards for things they like, selfishly, and another for everything else. ALMOST.

The difference is, bombs are illegal to possess in most cases, and they have no legal purpose. Guns are completely legal to possess in Georgia and many people routinely carry them around. I DON'T CARRY A GUN, OR LIKE PEOPLE WHO DO. I also don't like living in a police state where people are arrested for looking at a cop wrong, or violating the rules of airport security theater.


Ultimately you're just proving my point. The law as it stands makes it illegal to bring the gun through security. The law also makes it illegal to carry bombs around. You argued intent. As did I. You cannot logically be for not being responsible for breaking the law in one case, and not the other with your rationale, which is why it's faulty. Hopefully now you understand why we don't attempt to legislate based on intent. We legislate based on risk. Yes, it's sometimes inconvenient.
 
2014-02-18 02:11:43 PM  

Magorn: mbillips: lennavan: mbillips:Didja notice how all those other things hurt people? But carrying a gun to the airport didn't hurt anyone? Look up intentional tort sometime.

Wow, I'll admit, I'm surprised by that fact.  Today I learned no one has ever been hurt by a gun at an airport.  Fark.com is such a wealth of truthiness!

No one was ever hurt by someone merely carrying a gun to an airport. They were hurt by someone taking a gun out and shooting it. The Georgia law is meant to address ONLY the former. Georgia law already allows you to carry a gun in the airport up to the security gates, anyway. There are probably dozens of goofballs at Hartsfield right now with concealed handguns, picking up or dropping off someone.

guns do go off accidentially. a gun doing that ON anirplane from the bottom of a carryon could  kill a plane full of people.  it would be unlikley, but a bullet blowing out a window could be a very bad thing and cause complete cabin depressurization


Guns sitting in a suitcase don't go off accidentally unless they're SERIOUSLY defective. If you were opening the case, sure, you could accidentally discharge it. Oh, and that's a myth about a handgun bullet causing rapid cabin depressurization. Mythbusters disproved it (it makes no sense from a physics standpoint; plane fuselages aren't latex balloons). Even the windows won't blow out from a bullet hole; they'll just leak through the hole. That would be a bad thing, but in terms of risk, it's probably less likely than the chihuahua under somebody's seat getting loose and severing someone's carotid artery. And WAY less than the risk of dying from a disease you picked up on the plane.
 
2014-02-18 02:12:18 PM  
....and I always make sure my Swiss Army knife is in my check-in bag and not my carry-on bag.

/Then again, I don't really travel with it any more.
//Don't want to lose it to a TSA goon with "sticky fingers".
 
2014-02-18 02:15:08 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: mbillips: The difference is, bombs are illegal to possess in most cases, and they have no legal purpose

Bombs have no legal purpose? Really?

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 299x168]

[worldonline.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com image 640x511]


Those aren't bombs. Those are industrial demolition charges. Bombs are portable anti-personnel devices. Now, if you wanted to argue that people who inadvertently carried a block of C4 on a plane were endangering us all, you'd have a worse argument than the one about guns in luggage, because that stuff is inert if you don't have a detonator attached. You can throw it in a fireplace and it'll just burn.
 
2014-02-18 02:15:36 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Russ1642: I hate laws that don't take into account intent.

But intent is subjective.  It's why so many people hate "stand your ground".  If I'm intending on committing a crime and I'm caught with a gun where I shouldn't have one, can't I just say it was an accident?  How do we decide?

Intent has it's place in criminal law, but it's not here.


This.
 
2014-02-18 02:16:47 PM  
Hey you know, I like this gun storage locker at the airport.  In addition, I think we should have robots that cruise parking lots checking for infants for people who accidentally forget their babies in the car then they can put the babies in baby storage.
 
2014-02-18 02:17:04 PM  

The_Sponge: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The_Sponge: I forgot the name of the yahoo who said I was an irresponsible gun owner because I refuse to register mine.

Nothing says Responsible Gun Owner like flaunting the law.


Yeah!  That Rosa Parks should have known her place and moved to the back of the bus.


It's funny that you see yourself as such a victim, to portray yourself as equal to someone fighting for racial equality against a hypothetical scenario that doesn't exist, based on a single interpretation of the 2nd amendment that is roughly 6 years old, that goes against ~70 years of precedence, that would STILL constitutionally consider registration legal.

Do you have no shame, sir?
 
2014-02-18 02:18:05 PM  

lennavan: mbillips:Didja notice how all those other things hurt people? But carrying a gun to the airport didn't hurt anyone? Look up intentional tort sometime.

Wow, I'll admit, I'm surprised by that fact.  Today I learned no one has ever been hurt by a gun at an airport.  Fark.com is such a wealth of truthiness!


He also neglected one of my Boobiess: over the speed limit. How about drugs? How about gay sex? It's almost like the gun derpers forget there are other victimless crimes. But this victimless crime COULD be with intent to have many victims.
 
2014-02-18 02:20:13 PM  

mbillips: Guns sitting in a suitcase don't go off accidentally unless they're SERIOUSLY defective.


My friend had an SKS that he bought from a gun show. When there was one in the chamber, it would misfire if you set it down. When I told this story previously on Fark, some doofuses (sp-doofii?) pretending that they were gun experts said that the gun wasn't clean and that anyone who owned it -therefor wasn't a responsible gun owner... but we determined that the previous owner had converted it to full auto at some point and then half-assed converting it back.

But guns DO misfire, especially if there is one in the chamber you know -like the way that irresponsible gun owners like to keep their weapons
 
2014-02-18 02:20:23 PM  

The_Sponge: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The_Sponge: I forgot the name of the yahoo who said I was an irresponsible gun owner because I refuse to register mine.

Nothing says Responsible Gun Owner like flaunting the law.


Yeah!  That Rosa Parks should have known her place and moved to the back of the bus.


Haha civil rights. Yeah, you farking crusader, you.
 
2014-02-18 02:21:31 PM  

mbillips: Sin_City_Superhero: mbillips: The difference is, bombs are illegal to possess in most cases, and they have no legal purpose

Bombs have no legal purpose? Really?

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 299x168]

[worldonline.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com image 640x511]

Those aren't bombs. Those are industrial demolition charges. Bombs are portable anti-personnel devices. Now, if you wanted to argue that people who inadvertently carried a block of C4 on a plane were endangering us all, you'd have a worse argument than the one about guns in luggage, because that stuff is inert if you don't have a detonator attached. You can throw it in a fireplace and it'll just burn.


bomb

/bäm/

noun

noun: bomb; plural noun: bombs; noun: volcanic bomb; plural noun: volcanic bombs; noun: a bomb

1. a container filled with explosive, incendiary material, smoke, gas, or other destructive substance, designed to explode on impact or when detonated by a time mechanism, remote-control device, or lit fuse.


Dynamite is a bomb.
 
2014-02-18 02:22:20 PM  
I don't know how others do it, but when I go to the airport, I know each and every item I have in my baggage hold bag, every item in my carry-on, and every item in my briefcase. Because I check through each and every bag and packed each and every one of them.
 
2014-02-18 02:23:17 PM  

mbillips: Sin_City_Superhero: mbillips: The difference is, bombs are illegal to possess in most cases, and they have no legal purpose

Bombs have no legal purpose? Really?

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 299x168]

[worldonline.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com image 640x511]

Those aren't bombs. Those are industrial demolition charges. Bombs are portable anti-personnel devices. Now, if you wanted to argue that people who inadvertently carried a block of C4 on a plane were endangering us all, you'd have a worse argument than the one about guns in luggage, because that stuff is inert if you don't have a detonator attached. You can throw it in a fireplace and it'll just burn.


Face it, your argument is flawed on the surface. I don't know your intent, but you are trying to give guns a separate category than many other similar and dissimilar items that use the same logic you have attempted.

They all fail for the same reason; intent is not obvious and subject to interpretation.
 
2014-02-18 02:24:23 PM  

justtray: Ultimately you're just proving my point. The law as it stands makes it illegal to bring the gun through security. The law also makes it illegal to carry bombs around. You argued intent. As did I. You cannot logically be for not being responsible for breaking the law in one case, and not the other with your rationale, which is why it's faulty. Hopefully now you understand why we don't attempt to legislate based on intent. We legislate based on risk. Yes, it's sometimes inconvenient.


No, we mostly legislate based on baseless fear and panic. That's why you can't carry a bottle of water on a plane. Because of a never-realized plan to conceal explosive chemicals in bottles that looked like water. We extrapolate real threats (the wave of armed hijackers in the early 1970s, 9/11) into imaginary ones (ordinary citizens carrying guns). Concealed carry by ordinary citizens is silly, it's unnecessary, but it's about as likely to hurt you as a stray dog in your neighborhood.

How do I know this? Because people don't shoot up Greyhound buses or Amtrak trains, neither of which check your carry-on luggage. You could let every person on the TSA pre-clear list carry a pistol, and nobody would ever notice the difference.
 
2014-02-18 02:24:23 PM  

dericwater: I don't know how others do it, but when I go to the airport, I know each and every item I have in my baggage hold bag, every item in my carry-on, and every item in my briefcase. Because I check through each and every bag and packed each and every one of them.


Here too.  I know the f*cking thread count of the sheets in my luggage.  I know the guy damn RPMs my electric shaver has.  I know I have $2.38 in change in my carry-on.

So, not only are they irresponsible, THEY'RE SH*TTY AIRPORT PATRONS too!

//holdin-up-the-TSA-line motherf*ckers!
 
2014-02-18 02:24:26 PM  
Again, in this very thread, we were told that there were only a few tenants of responsible gun ownership, and one of those was "Making sure that unauthorized people do not get access to your gun."

I am still sort of waiting for an explanation for how one does this when *they are ignorant that they have the gun with them*

Perhaps they used some sort of 2nd amendment warding spell, or something.

Then again, RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS (or at least one) think folks shouldn't be charged when a loaded gun is left out, and a 5 year old kills a 2 year old with it, so whatever.
 
2014-02-18 02:24:44 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: bomb

/bäm/

noun

noun: bomb; plural noun: bombs; noun: volcanic bomb; plural noun: volcanic bombs; noun: a bomb

1. a container filled with explosive, incendiary material, smoke, gas, or other destructive substance, designed to explode on impact or when detonated by a time mechanism, remote-control device, or lit fuse.


Dynamite is a bomb.


I think he's trying to say that it's legal to bring "demolition charges" onto an airplane.
 
2014-02-18 02:24:50 PM  

justtray: mbillips: Sin_City_Superhero: mbillips: The difference is, bombs are illegal to possess in most cases, and they have no legal purpose

Bombs have no legal purpose? Really?

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 299x168]

[worldonline.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com image 640x511]

Those aren't bombs. Those are industrial demolition charges. Bombs are portable anti-personnel devices. Now, if you wanted to argue that people who inadvertently carried a block of C4 on a plane were endangering us all, you'd have a worse argument than the one about guns in luggage, because that stuff is inert if you don't have a detonator attached. You can throw it in a fireplace and it'll just burn.

Face it, your argument is flawed on the surface. I don't know your intent, but you are trying to give guns a separate category than many other similar and dissimilar items that use the same logic you have attempted.

They all fail for the same reason; intent is not obvious and subject to interpretation.


I'm not making ANY argument, either way. I was simply pointing out that there are legal uses for bombs. That's all.
 
2014-02-18 02:26:24 PM  
If you own a gun, and you forget where it is, you should be forced to give that gun away to somebody who will responsibly care for it like an adult.
 
2014-02-18 02:27:54 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: I'm not making ANY argument, either way. I was simply pointing out that there are legal uses for bombs. That's all.


I was not replying to you good sir. Your argument was valid, and it was the same as I was bringing up.
 
2014-02-18 02:28:24 PM  

AgentPothead: If you own a gun, and you forget where it is, you should be forced to give that gun away to somebody who will responsibly care for it like an adult use it on yourself.


It's the only way to be sure.  -Hicks
 
2014-02-18 02:28:47 PM  

mbillips: people don't shoot up Greyhound buses or Amtrak trains


You'll never guess what 5 seconds of google will pull up on this "fact."
 
2014-02-18 02:29:30 PM  
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun (he misplaced and that may have ended up in the hands of the bad guy in the first place)." -Wayne Lapierre
 
2014-02-18 02:30:13 PM  

dittybopper: justtray: We might as well make it the same for bombs. Afterall, no one was ever hurt by a bomb that wasn't detonated. Pretty strange logic these people employ here. It's ALMOST as if they have one set of standards for things they like, selfishly, and another for everything else. ALMOST.

Because an indiscriminate bomb capable of perhaps destroying an aircraft, and which in any case is not an effective individual defensive weapon because of it's indiscriminate nature, is exactly the same thing as a firearm.

Do you really even *THINK* about what you post before you hit "Enter"?


Just as a firearm is not the same thing as a knife, right? Oh, wait...
 
2014-02-18 02:31:16 PM  
You know what would be nice?

If TFA actually gave detail as to the bill's number or name so we could look it up and read the proposed law for ourselves.

Then, maybe, people could discuss it with some level of logic an knowledge.
 
Displayed 50 of 401 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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