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.

(The Raw Story)   Teenager in Aurora, Colorado trots around town carrying a shotgun, says he's free to do what he wants and to hell with everyone still concerned about the theater shooting; he has the Second Amendment on his side   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

15193 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2014 at 6:11 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1161 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-04 01:22:59 PM  

Theaetetus: monoski: China White Tea: monoski: After asking Lohner if he's eighteen - the legal age in Colorado to bear a weapon - the officer asks Lohner for his ID to which Lohner refuses, asking if he's committed a crime.

Yes, I, too, RTFA, but when I went looking for an actual statute, the only thing I found explicitly pertained to handguns.

Interesting. I wonder if there is no requirement for him to be 18 to carry a shotgun.

Y'know, after digging a bit, you may well be right there. I can't find anything relevant in the Aurora code, either.


Seems like an incredible oversight by the reporter, police and legislators if there is no such requirement. I am not a gun advocate or anti-gun person. I own a shotgun but I would be uncomfortable with minors having the legal right to walk down a street carrying a shotgun. I am okay with them hunting or target shooting with an adult present but kids don't need guns for self-defense.
 
2014-08-04 01:25:04 PM  
Lenny_da_Hog:

Yes. Photography is attention-whoring since 9/11.

Submit, citizen. Those ...


photography, no.  Being a pain in the ass so you can get arrested specifically to sue, yes.
 
2014-08-04 01:25:06 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: jchuffyman: To be fair on that point. At least in Virginia, the state law is that the store can refuse an alcohol or tobacco sale for any reason, no matter how old the person actually is. How that works in the state-owned liquor store? I don't know, but for beer and wine and cigs, Kroger gets to make that call. So the state has nothing to do with it

Oh yeah, you have to produce ID if you are buying hard liquor, just as if you were buying beer or cigs.


I mean, I know that, but I was just thinking if some whackjob had tried to argue that the state doesn't need to see their ID or something like that.
 
2014-08-04 01:25:47 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Only after he refused on those grounds did they come up with the age excuse.


You call me a dummy, yet you are arguing that they only used the 'age' and ID issue after exhausting all other avenues of abridging his rights?  It couldn't be due to the fact that he was freaking people out, and the officers had a duty to find out what they could about WHY he was walking around with a loaded shotgun?

Nope, has to be the abridgement of rights, every time.  That's all LEO's do anymore, right?
 
2014-08-04 01:26:35 PM  
Remember when John Kerry was carrying his hunting rifle in the proper manner and republicans lost their collective shiat about how he doesn't know how to carry a rifle? Then less than a year later, Dick Cheney was carrying his hunting rifle in an improper manner and nearly blew his friend's head off, and the friend had to apologize?

/good times... good times...
 
2014-08-04 01:27:17 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: Only after he refused on those grounds did they come up with the age excuse.

You call me a dummy, yet you are arguing that they only used the 'age' and ID issue after exhausting all other avenues of abridging his rights?  It couldn't be due to the fact that he was freaking people out, and the officers had a duty to find out what they could about WHY he was walking around with a loaded shotgun?

Nope, has to be the abridgement of rights, every time.  That's all LEO's do anymore, right?


This also totally ignores that public panic is in fact a reason that you lose your rights in almost every case.
 
2014-08-04 01:27:49 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: They asked him his age. He said he was 18. The cop didn't say, "You don't look 18," he simply went on to tell him at least three times that he was making people nervous -- causing alarm, causing the public to freak out.


A friend of mine was carrying his shotgun down the street to loan it to a friend, because his wife had taken the car to to work. This was in Montana, in a little town where things like bears still might come into town. But he wasn't looking for bears--he was just carrying his gun. The cops stopped him, told him that someone had called them, he was making people nervous.

You know what he did? He laughed, explained what he was doing, and took the gun to his friend's house. Now, what is the difference between this guy and Mr. 2nd Amendment worshipper? Could it be ATTENTION WHORING?

It's not illegal for me to stand on the street corner in a string bikini and scream Bible verses at the passersby either. But I bet someone would call the cops on me. You can do whatever you want in public. But if you don't want the public to pay attention to it, maybe you should just do it in your back yard. Or not at all.
 
2014-08-04 01:27:53 PM  

ZeroPly: Yes, and if you were a police officer, and had suspicion that an underage person was carrying a firearm, you could tell that person that you had suspicion of that particular crime, and request identification. If identification was not provided, you could legally arrest that person and take them in.


The first thing he did was ask for identification. Your position, then, is that where a suspect like the one in question is functionally retarded, the police are obliged to spell out logical connections obvious to any person with an IQ above that of your typical ideological conservative. That fact that he's a young looking person toting around a gun in a community relatively recently victimized by a mass shooting just wasn't enough for your beloved little treason monkey here to figure out why he was being carded.
 
2014-08-04 01:28:37 PM  

m00: born_yesterday: How about the whole "regulated militia" part? How come that part always seems to get lopped off?

Warning: this post does not take a black/white stance, so for any farkers reading this if your thinking is black/white ("guns are bad!" "guns are good!") you probably shouldn't read.

But I just want to point out that when the 2nd was written...

1) "Regulated" in common use was interchangeable with "Orderly" or "Working."
2) "Militia" meant every male able to fight/carry a rifle.

The intent of the 2nd was that instead of relying on government to protect you day-to-day, the citizens of towns and cities self-organized to create town watches and so forth. Any group of any size of random Joes could band together and form a militia, with the caveat being it needed to be orderly. Like you couldn't be a bunch of drunk yahoos shooting guns in the air for fun. Such people have always existed throughout history.

In fact, local Law Enforcement was intended to be such groups of citizens, similar to volunteer fire fighters. If somebody stole a chicken or knifed a farmer, the group captures the individual and hands him over to a judge to decide if any crime had been committed, and whether there was evidence, and what to do about it. Judges were legal professionals, while militias were not.

What the founders never realized was that not only would cities grow so large so as to require a professional class of militia (which is what cops are), but also there would be such a sheer number of laws that cops also needed to become legal professionals. We have all sorts of things like chain-of-evidence, reading your rights etc which are good things but you need a professional law enforcement to do that. And also, forensics is very technical.

So I think the spirit of the 2nd is valid -- that people simply have a right to organize and carry arms for their self-defense, or common defense against criminals (as long as it's orderly). That people have a basic right to own a gun. ...


Respectfully, while I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with how you got there. For example, you suggest that "the founders never realized... that not only would cities grow so large so as to require a professional class of militia (which is what cops are)". At the time of the Constitution, New York City had a population of 33 thousand, and had both day and night police watches, who were later merged to be the NYPD. On the contrary, there were plenty of cops during the colonial era.

Furthermore, the second amendment wouldn't flow logically from your justification - if the founders wanted to encourage the existence of militias for local law enforcement, then why would the federal constitution include a prohibition on the government from seizing arms? Like, they thought that some future Congress might say "gosh, local policing is good, but they should do it all naked, so we'll seize all arms"? That makes no sense.

The second amendment makes sense in context of the Intolerable Acts in the run-up to the Revolution - to preemptively prevent the rebellion, the British would (a) seize weapons from the citizens, and (b) quarter troops in the private houses of potential rebels - i.e. the very things that the 2nd and 3rd amendments prevent the government from doing. Following the maxim of power corrupts, the founders were afraid that a future government would turn tyrannical and preemptively move to prevent the citizens from overthrowing the government through preemptively seizing weapons and quartering troops in private homes.

So, yes, the amendment does protect an individual right, rather than exercise of that right only within a government-approved militia.
 
2014-08-04 01:29:14 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Nope, has to be the abridgement of rights, every time.  That's all LEO's do anymore, right?


Well, there's revenue generation too of course, those 3 mile an hour over tickets don't write themselves.
 
2014-08-04 01:29:40 PM  

scarbachi: Oh thank god some fat teenager in Aurora is attention whoring for his own safety, and those around him. That dude needs to touch some boobies and STFU.


The doughy pantload is probably tired of touching his own funbags, hence the "walking-around-town-with-a-shotgun" fetish.
 
2014-08-04 01:29:55 PM  

Chummer45: I find it amusing that for all of the horrific police misconduct and overreach in this country, the thing that has (primarily young, middle class white men) up in arms is that the police would dare question some idiot teenager walking around town with a loaded shotgun.


Exactly.
Kill a brown guy who is selling untaxed cigarettes, meh.
Ask an attention whoring teenager for some ID. TYRANNY!!!
 
2014-08-04 01:31:20 PM  
Why is it always greasy skinned white fat fark with non existent muzzle control that parade around with weapons in public for the sole purpose of asshattery and starting shiat in the name of exercising their right s?I may have answered my own question.
 
2014-08-04 01:32:14 PM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


Maybe another person with a gun could have stopped these mass murders. Maybe they couldn't.

But, we all KNOW exactly what happened because there was no one around to fight back.
 
2014-08-04 01:32:21 PM  
i61.tinypic.com
 
2014-08-04 01:33:09 PM  

Baz744: Going by his behavior, the first words out of his mouth were about his age. That was why he stopped him.


No, the first words were asking him what he was doing. He then asks his age, and he replies that he's 18. The officer repeats over and over again that his reason for asking for an ID is that he's causing alarm. The second officer arrives and asks him if he's trying to make a second amendment statement.

The officer says he he wants the ID for a number of reasons. He says he wants it to prove he's not a felon. The first officer then says he wants the ID to show he has no outstanding warrants. THEN he says he wants it to prove his age.

THEN he says he identifies people through names and dates of birth, and wants that identity.
 
2014-08-04 01:33:13 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-04 01:33:18 PM  
Liberals want to take away rights from anyone who does not support their cause. They will use every means at their disposal, including corruption, fear, intimidation.

Really is as simple as that. Same way that liberal colleges punish kids for daring to be conservative, while encouraging liberalism. Liberals are cowards.
 
2014-08-04 01:33:47 PM  
I'll take the Big Government Libtard Position now:


ONLY GOVERNMENT AGENTS SHOULD HAVE GUNS!!!

pearlsofprofundity.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-08-04 01:34:54 PM  

Dadoody: Maybe another person with a gun could have stopped these mass murders. Maybe they couldn't.

But, we all KNOW exactly what happened because there was no one around to fight back.


If you admit that we don't know if a person with a could or could not have been able to stop the mass murders, then by definition, we can't know what happened due to their absence.
 
2014-08-04 01:35:16 PM  

China White Tea: airsupport: No, your hypocrisy comes from commenting on the pointlessness and futility of my post, a post you commented on while contributing nothing of your own. Also, drug references are cool! You must be a badass.

You seem pretty mad about this.  Given your long-winded (if inarticulate) tirade about the unimportance of Chubby McGunslinger, I would expect you to have long since come to grips with your own insignificance.


Can someone please direct me to the nearest aloe plant, that I may sooth my singed ego?

I'm not sure how I will go on after this, China.  You've given me a lot to think about.  Kinda redefined my entire place in the universe.  That's a lot to drop on a dude.
 
2014-08-04 01:35:20 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: Only after he refused on those grounds did they come up with the age excuse.

You call me a dummy, yet you are arguing that they only used the 'age' and ID issue after exhausting all other avenues of abridging his rights?  It couldn't be due to the fact that he was freaking people out, and the officers had a duty to find out what they could about WHY he was walking around with a loaded shotgun?

Nope, has to be the abridgement of rights, every time.  That's all LEO's do anymore, right?


Freaking people out is not against the law. You being unreasonably afraid of clowns is not a reason to arrest clowns.
 
2014-08-04 01:35:47 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Lenny_da_Hog: They only thought of the age issue after he refused to provide his papers.

Amazing.  I didn't realize you could read the minds of law enforcement.  How nice of you to know exactly why they did what they did.  Maybe you should head out to defend this kid in court, and argue that you know the cops were abridging his rights, based on your ability to read the cops minds.


Actually, I work in a field where discerning people's thoughts is a primary skill.  Picking apart their words, body language, inflection, and the pattern of information (i.e. how the things they say reveal the things they don't say) is incredibly important.  I've reconstructed personal details of people's lives that they never told anyone just by noticing the way they move through a conversation, dropping and emphasizing details, taking personal interest in a supposedly impersonal topic, and so on.

Sometimes it really is what they say; other times, it's the way they say it.  It's when the conversation is completely banal, and they don't flinch, but, at one tiny detail, they say, "That's horrifying for a person," when everything else before and after it is "that must be..." and "you would think...".  You watch, and that full confidence in fact consistently comes around that exact point.  This person is covering some relevant experience.  Keep listening, and you'll be able to work out exactly what it is.

Macrobehavior is easier.  If you see cops not questioning adults carrying shotguns, but they question 20 year olds carrying shotguns, you can quickly hypothesize an age discrimination.  If you watch, you'll see fear, disgust, curiosity--you can tell if they're unsettled, if they have some moral issue, or if they're uncertain but unshaken by the situation and are engaging in routine or novel inquiry.  You can, quite readily, analyze their motivations from their behavior.

Humans aren't unreadable black boxes.  Not even African humans.
 
2014-08-04 01:35:48 PM  

Thunderpipes: Liberals want to take away rights from anyone who does not support their cause. They will use every means at their disposal, including corruption, fear, intimidation.

Really is as simple as that. Same way that liberal colleges punish kids for daring to be conservative, while encouraging liberalism. Liberals are cowards.


5/10
 
2014-08-04 01:35:57 PM  
i62.tinypic.com
/Now with properly scaled eyebrows!
 
2014-08-04 01:36:27 PM  

Theaetetus: So, yes, the amendment does protect an individual right, rather than exercise of that right only within a government-approved militia.


It protects it only within a well regulated militia. `Whatever definition you use, the fact is, the vast majority of gun owners are members of no militia whatsoever, much less one that is in any sense of the phrase "well regulated."

To qualify was a "well regulated militia," its members should be able to at least state things like:

1) who their commanding officer is,
2) how often they report for drills,
3) where they report for drills,
4) how they will know they've been called up for service,
5) where they report if called to service,
6) who is responsible for provision of supplies while they are in service.

A "militia" who's members can't report at least those facts is in no way "well regulated," most likely not even a "militia" in any meaningful sense of the word.
 
2014-08-04 01:39:24 PM  
Baz744: Theaetetus: So, yes, the amendment does protect an individual right, rather than exercise of that right only within a government-approved militia.

It protects it only within a well regulated militia. `Whatever definition you use, the fact is, the vast majority of gun owners are members of no militia whatsoever, much less one that is in any sense of the phrase "well regulated."

To qualify was a "well regulated militia," its members should be able to at least state things like:

1) who their commanding officer is,S2) how often they report for drills,
3) where they report for drills,
4) how they will know they've been called up for service,
5) where they report if called to service,
6) who is responsible for provision of supplies while they are in service.

A "militia" who's members can't report at least those facts is in no way "well regulated," most likely not even a "militia" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Once again, to be fair, the Supreme Court has not interpreted it that way. So, no matter what the original intent was, for all intents and purposes, it might as well say "You can own guns, big ones, too." So until that ruling is changed, the well-regulated argument doesn't really play any part.
 
2014-08-04 01:39:33 PM  

room at the top: Lenny_da_Hog:

Yes. Photography is attention-whoring since 9/11.

Submit, citizen. Those ...

photography, no.  Being a pain in the ass so you can get arrested specifically to sue, yes.


When did I say I did that? I've never done that.

Still, even if people *do* want to be attention-whores and sue, it's because the police actually fall for the bait. I'm thankful for those people, because without them, the police would continue to flex their muscle against legal, constitutionally protected activities.
 
2014-08-04 01:39:57 PM  

Baz744: Theaetetus: So, yes, the amendment does protect an individual right, rather than exercise of that right only within a government-approved militia.

It protects it only within a well regulated militia.


I just explained why it does not. If you have a specific disagreement with my explanation, please quote and reply, rather than just providing a definition of a militia.
 
2014-08-04 01:41:08 PM  
I'm enjoying the derp in this thread


i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-04 01:41:13 PM  

Baz744: It protects it only within a well regulated militia.


 nah, the militia is necessary for a free state and the people need to tools necessary to form a militia when that need arises.
 
2014-08-04 01:41:27 PM  

Brainsick: pendy575: . He was under no obligation to provide identification unless they told him exactly why he was being asked

LOL wut?


Try that next time a cop asks for your ID, just, really be specific and tell them you DEMAND to know why they want to see your identification; that should go over well. Here in Seattle, looking at a cop for too long is an arrestable offense, let alone taking a picture of one, so I won't be trying that anytime soon...


You're not getting it.

The reason your cops walk all over you is because you don't call them on it. They want you to believe that if you assert your rights, they will arrest you. The only way to show them who is boss is to assert your rights. It's sad that an idiot loner teenager has the cojones, and you don't. Pick a side already.
 
2014-08-04 01:41:45 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Baz744: Going by his behavior, the first words out of his mouth were about his age. That was why he stopped him.

No, the first words were asking him what he was doing. He then asks his age, and he replies that he's 18. The officer repeats over and over again that his reason for asking for an ID is that he's causing alarm. The second officer arrives and asks him if he's trying to make a second amendment statement.

The officer says he he wants the ID for a number of reasons. He says he wants it to prove he's not a felon. The first officer then says he wants the ID to show he has no outstanding warrants. THEN he says he wants it to prove his age.

THEN he says he identifies people through names and dates of birth, and wants that identity.


Well f*ck me, the fact that the police wanted to know he wasn't a convicted felon, fleeing fugitive, or minor in possession of a firearm proves the ONLY REASON they stopped him was to persecute him for being a conservative!!!

All of the officer's state dreasons for asking for ID were legit. All of them. Your little treason monkey is just a miscreant. Nothing more.
 
2014-08-04 01:42:47 PM  

CMYK and PMS: The real problem with gun possession is that the metric used is "every law abiding citizen". Well how do we determine this? By arrest record? I have no record and I can assure you that I have done things in my youth that would put me in jail. What about the mentally and emotionally ill. How do we determine if they can own guns? It is not a black and white issue and needs a better answer then what we have arrived at so far.


You're discussing risk.  To handle threat, you must either avoid, mitigate, transfer, or accept.

Regulations on age, state of mind (illegal to sell firearms to an obviously angry person), restrictions by criminal history and psychological evaluation (no violent criminals or murderers), and so on mitigate these risks.  Because of these things, the likelihood of violent gun crime by legally-possessed firearms is reduced.

Gun registration accepts these risks.  Registration allows us to trace firearms, providing a contingency for finding gun owners after a violent crime.  It also allows us to confiscate firearms upon arrest, reducing the number of firearms a person may have stashed away.

The remaining marginal risk is accepted without further contingency.

Banning firearms would avoid the responsibility for violent gun crime with legal firearms, but creates the risk of increased proliferation of illegal firearms and the negative consequences of the support network.  We can consider legal, regulated firearms as a mitigation for illegal firearm black market proliferation.
 
2014-08-04 01:43:04 PM  
Did Doughy McDumbass throw a hissy fit when the person behind the counter asked for his ID when he bought those cigarettes?
 
2014-08-04 01:43:36 PM  

Itstoearly: serpent_sky: MisterTweak: Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification


According to Lohner, who says he's been stopped multiple times and never had to show ID, he's on a mission to make people more comfortable about guns.

Mission Accomplished!

/for values of "accomplished" which include 'creeping people out and reinforcing the idea that gun owners rank somewhere between "registered sex offender" and "kettle drum designer" as neighbors.'

Nice work, asshat.

People like this are going to ensure that open carry laws are changed or severely curtailed, if they keep it up.
And then they'll find how much more difficult it is to get a concealed carry permit. And they wouldn't carry in violation of the laws, if they did change, would they? Because they're law-abiding, responsible gun owners.

Again, I grew up around guns, I am not pants-wetting terrified of being shot at all times... but if I saw a guy walking down the street with a shotgun in his hand, I'm not about to feel more comfortable around him, guns in an of themselves, or my neighborhood for that matter. Not that I live in a state where that's legal - but you get the point.  Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to - or even should.

I also can't see how open carry laws (regarding walking down city streets just holding a shotgun or what-have-you) don't somewhat contradict laws against inciting a panic or the used to cover anything we don't like "makingterroristic threats".  It could just be the raised in NY, living in CT me, but I'd be pretty panicked if I headed out to the stores later and a guy was walking down Post Road with a shotgun, and I imagine most people would.

I live in Vermont, and during hunting season, you will often see people walking down the road with rifles and shotguns on th ...


You have apparently not considered that there are times and places for things.  In rural areas or during hunting season, guns are to be expected and no big deal.  In a VERY urban area(Aurora) and not during hunting season, then a shotgun carried around is going to cause concern.  If nothing else, there's concern because there is absolutely no reason for the carrying of said shotgun other than 1) you're up to no good or 2) you're a attention whore and therefore slightly mentally unstable.  In either of those cases, I'd move my children away from them in a calm manner.

I grew up in a rural area and I grew up with guns.  Shooting is one of my favorite things to do.  I'm also not a moron and I'm responsible.
 
2014-08-04 01:44:24 PM  
Boy, all you shotgun users suck.

Rifled shotgun, steel dart round, death fro 250 yards away.

From a short-barrel, at that.

/LOL at the mention of a Bullpup in this thread.
 
2014-08-04 01:44:47 PM  
I believe that asshats like this are legally allowed to carry their weapons.

However, if he ever points it at anyone, even as a joke, I believe that I am legally allowed to treat that as a threat with a deadly weapon.  That means running, calling police, taking legal action, or even violence if I'm drunk enough to punch a guy with a shotgun.

As long as these weapons are holstered or otherwise properly carried, it's fine.  But I'm seeing video of these people swinging their assault weapons around the room past bystanders, and that's not okay.
 
2014-08-04 01:45:34 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: I actually feel bad for most cops these days.  Between the 'open carry' idiots, the 'gun rights/2nd Amendment' types and the increase of the Sovereign Citizen movement around the country, coupled with the fact that none of the groups mentioned think the law pertains to THEM, means that cop has a higher than average chance of either being wounded in the line of duty now, or not returning home at all.

Makes one wonder why anyone would want to be a cop these days, knowing that you may get shot just for doing your job by an everyday citizen who sees you as the threat.


You mean that job they have, the one that's almost as dangerous as farming?

\beware the wily carrot
 
2014-08-04 01:46:23 PM  

redmid17: Baz744: jshine: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

His fantasy was to stir people up and cause a confrontation where he was technically in the right, and it played out *exactly* as he intended.

No, it didn't. Law enforcement couldn't determine his age. They had probable cause to suspect he was a minor criminally in possession of a firearm. He did not have a legal right to refuse to show his ID.

He is not technically in the right.

His opening sentence was "I just went to the gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes."


So what you're saying is they now had an obligation to investigate multiple potential offences, and possibly go check to make sure the gas station isn't selling tobacco products to underage customers as well?  Because that's what I am reading.
 
2014-08-04 01:46:32 PM  

jchuffyman: Once again, to be fair, the Supreme Court has not interpreted it that way. So, no matter what the original intent was, for all intents and purposes, it might as well say "You can own guns, big ones, too." So until that ruling is changed, the well-regulated argument doesn't really play any part.


The implicit argument, as in most discussions of this sort, is that the Supreme Court has incorrectly construed the Constitution. Much like when an ideological conservative says "abortion isn't a right," he most likely understands the current state of the case law guaranteeing access to abortion as a constitutional right. Likewise, I understand here that the current crop of gun industry lobby appointees pretending to be Supreme Court justices have been bought and paid to construe the 2nd Amendment without reference to the words "a well regulated militia."

I just think they're wrong.
 
2014-08-04 01:46:33 PM  

Baz744: All of the officer's state dreasons for asking for ID were legit. All of them.


Not all... the cops can't simply demand ID from every person walking down the street just in case they're a wanted felon or felling fugitive. Even if you have a string of warrants a mile long, if you're simply walking in a public place and doing nothing else, the police can't stop you and demand your ID - there is no reasonable suspicion that you have committed or are committing a crime.
Now, his looks raised the possibility that he was a minor, and accordingly, they may* have had reasonable suspicion to ask for ID on those grounds. But just that - simply carrying a weapon openly, in an open carry state, is not sufficient grounds to be detained.

*except as noted by China White Tea, there doesn't actually appear to be any law in Colorado or Aurora prevent minors from openly carrying shotguns, only handguns. Which really changes the entire article and thread, if true.
 
2014-08-04 01:48:22 PM  

Baz744: jchuffyman: Once again, to be fair, the Supreme Court has not interpreted it that way. So, no matter what the original intent was, for all intents and purposes, it might as well say "You can own guns, big ones, too." So until that ruling is changed, the well-regulated argument doesn't really play any part.

The implicit argument, as in most discussions of this sort, is that the Supreme Court has incorrectly construed the Constitution. Much like when an ideological conservative says "abortion isn't a right," he most likely understands the current state of the case law guaranteeing access to abortion as a constitutional right. Likewise, I understand here that the current crop of gun industry lobby appointees pretending to be Supreme Court justices have been bought and paid to construe the 2nd Amendment without reference to the words "a well regulated militia."

I just think they're wrong.


That is also true. My point is that what you are arguing has no point unless that ruling changes. I also think anti-abortion people should realize that.
 
2014-08-04 01:48:53 PM  

Baz744: jchuffyman: Once again, to be fair, the Supreme Court has not interpreted it that way. So, no matter what the original intent was, for all intents and purposes, it might as well say "You can own guns, big ones, too." So until that ruling is changed, the well-regulated argument doesn't really play any part.

The implicit argument, as in most discussions of this sort, is that the Supreme Court has incorrectly construed the Constitution. Much like when an ideological conservative says "abortion isn't a right," he most likely understands the current state of the case law guaranteeing access to abortion as a constitutional right. Likewise, I understand here that the current crop of gun industry lobby appointees pretending to be Supreme Court justices have been bought and paid to construe the 2nd Amendment without reference to the words "a well regulated militia."

I just think they're wrong.


Yes, and I'm asking why you think they're wrong. Not what you think a well regulated militia is, but why you think the 2nd amendment requires membership in one to carry arms as opposed to protecting an individual right to stockpile arms. In particular, what do you disagree with in my reference to the Intolerable Acts and my comparison of the 2nd and 3rd amendments to those Acts?
 
2014-08-04 01:50:07 PM  

Shepherd: I believe that asshats like this are legally allowed to carry their weapons.

However, if he ever points it at anyone, even as a joke, I believe that I am legally allowed to treat that as a threat with a deadly weapon.  That means running, calling police, taking legal action, or even violence if I'm drunk enough to punch a guy with a shotgun.

As long as these weapons are holstered or otherwise properly carried, it's fine.  But I'm seeing video of these people swinging their assault weapons around the room past bystanders, and that's not okay.


If you are close enough to punch him, you can probably disarm him. Just punch (or palm strike) him in the nose with one hand and grab the shotgun with the other. That kid doesn't look like he would put up much of a fight.
 
2014-08-04 01:50:37 PM  

Baz744: He tried to appeal to the suspect's reason, and senses of patriotism and civic responsibility by telling him he was frightening other people.


So it was like the sundown laws.

\Go be black somewhere else
 
2014-08-04 01:50:38 PM  

pla: serpent_sky : People like this are going to ensure that open carry laws are changed or severely curtailed, if they keep it up.

Any "right" you can't actually act on - doesn't exist in the first place. We need more... Thousands more, Millions more, to start open carrying; not for protection but simply to make it normal again. You know what has changed between 1914 and 2014? in 1914, virtually everyone had seen and used a gun from an early age for both hunting and varmint-killing. In 2014, most people have only seen guns in movies, which adhere to Chekhov's rule: If you see a gun in the first act, it will get fired by the fourth act. Guns have gone from a tool to a prop for many (particularly urban, which I don't mean as a euphemism for "black") people; meanwhile, the other 50% of the country that lives outside the cities still uses them for hunting and varmint killing.


MagSeven : show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifle

You can effectively hunt deer with a slug out to around 50 yards. No, not as accurate as a rifle, but then, you wouldn't use a rifle for self defense, either! And, I'll let you in on a little secret - That legendary "spread" of pellets doesn't become the size of an SUV within just a few feet - More like 12-18in at 25 yards.  For comparison, you'd consider it a great day to pull off a 12in cluster at 25 yards from a carry-style (short barreled) pistol.


A lot less than 50% of the country lives in rural areas.  And this has been true for nearly a century. The Industrial Revolution was a fantastical thing.
 
2014-08-04 01:51:10 PM  

Baz744: I understand here that the current crop of gun industry lobby appointees pretending to be Supreme Court justices have been bought and paid to construe the 2nd Amendment without reference to the words "a well regulated militia."


how do you form a well regulated militia without guns?  ..that would be a poorly regulated militia...
 
2014-08-04 01:53:01 PM  

Baz744: It protects it only within a well regulated militia.


I think there are several Supreme Court cases you need to check out before repeating that line ever again.

It's been held that arms ownership is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
 
2014-08-04 01:53:18 PM  

Theaetetus: Not all...


So he stated three reasons, one of them sufficient to justify the detention and demand for identification. The other two perfectly legitimate law enforcement questions. Especially as the refusal to cooperate with a lawful request for identification can constitute probable cause to believe a young looking suspect toting a firearm is otherwise unlawfully in possession of the firearm.

Or are you asserting officers are somehow obliged to state their reasons for a detention in order of constitutional preference as dictated by the NRA?
 
Displayed 50 of 1161 comments

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | 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