Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum14-year-old boy dies after West Homestead shooting
By Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Monday, December 19, 2011
Last updated: 6:44 pm
A 14-year-old boy who was shot in the back this afternoon in West Homestead died while undergoing surgery at a Pittsburgh hospital , according to the Allegheny County Medical Examiner's office.
Police Chief Christopher Deasy said officers responded to a call for multiple gunshots at around 2:40 p.m. and found the victim face down in the street.
The teenager, who was not identified, was conscious when he was transported by ambulance to UPMC Mercy, Uptown, authorities said. He died in the operating room at 4:22 p.m., according to the medical examiner's office.
Investigators found 15 shell casings and three guns near where the shooting took place at the intersection of Locust Way and Sarah Street.
Read more: 14-year-old boy dies after West Homestead shooting - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_772786.html#ixzz1h27d0tEW
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Care to hazard a guess? I'm willing to bet they weren't legally owned. How did they go from probably being legally bought guns to illegally possessed? What can we do to prevent things like this form happening?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)How you fixed for answers?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Guessing serves no useful purpose.
Odds are that at least one of the sales in the chain of ownership was illegal. The buyer, seller, and shooter(s) all need to be prosecuted.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)And how gun control plays into their effect? Why is the system failing so badly?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Common sense measures to reduce gun theft and criminal access. Limiting the number of firearms that a private citizen may keep in one place, and requiring them to be kept under lock when not in use, having local police department ensure this basic safety requirement has been met before allowing someone to buy a firearm. Limiting ammunition sells to only those who have passed a mental health screen and received license.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)of other countries. Mental health screens, no. It is hardly an exact science and can be subjective. While they vary widely, they range from maybe reasonable to stupid and everything else in between. The nearest example of number of guns limits would be Italy, although at one time France allowed only three machine guns but unlimited number of anything else.
If you want a licensing scheme, how about it also being your CCW, like the Czech Republic?
Or Canada, where your mail order gun comes to your door (even across provincial lines. You give your PAL number on the web site's order form. Of course the verify it with the RCMP.) Or both? Or Canada before 1977, pistols need licencing and registration, machine guns just need registration, other long guns same as Wyoming?
Amend NFA so silencers are regulated the same way they are in Finland, Norway, France, and New Zealand?
UK style laws, oh wait, UK has the highest violent crime rate in Europe. You can also pick up a submachine gun for 200 pounds if you know where to go.
Or Jamaica's, Oh wait their murder rate is 60/100K compared to our4.8/100K
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)You probably don't. Tough shit. It's not an absolute right. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)where racist coke head Don Imus gets a gun, but working class person gets told no for no reason.
LA County where the sheriff gives CCWs out to campaign contributors.
The police are inherently authoritarian and right wing. They should have no arbitrary power.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)You just lost whatever credibility with me you may have had with that one
They're the one's who are going to have to deal with problems - it's consistent with the Second Amendment.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)when the inner authoritarian came out.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Nothing could be more authoritarian than allowing every fool in the country to run around with a gun whenever they want - that is a society of fear.
Edit: It's okay. You've made clear you have no respect for law enforcement. How about not calling them when you need them? Since you're such a rugged individual.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)have enough of them in my family. Just that they should not have any control over civil liberties or arbitrary authority.
As for LAPD and LACSD, that has been documented.
Hardly a society of fear. Where I grew up, most households have guns. We never locked our doors and I could ride my bike anywhere in the city in complete safety. Your viewpoint is closer to conservative or reactionary.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)SteveW
(754 posts)Straw Man
(6,622 posts)None of them are absolute anyway, right? Fire, crowded theaters, etc.
Chilling. Absolutely chilling. Do you consider yourself a progressive?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I'm not sure you're understanding "absolute." I also kinda doubt you can be reasoned with; I'm not prepared to cede this country to the quickest draw.
hack89
(39,171 posts)People - Police - Courts - Legislature - Executive - cycle and repeat.
Gun control is a liberal position. Keeping guns out of the hands of crazies and White Supremacists is a liberal position. Why are their rights more important than mine?
hack89
(39,171 posts)I am not a crazy or a white supremacist - why are your rights more important than mine? I pose no threat to you.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I'm simply ensuring that they're exercised in a responsible fashion. Your gun, in the wrong hands, does pose a threat. You wouldn't have any problem getting a firearm.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you don't get to define what a responsible fashion is.
Fortunately you are on the losing side of history - you will never turn the tide.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)if you believe stereotypes and propaganda, so be it.
Sociologist Raymond Kessler spent a lot of time studying the issue. He came to the conclusion your viewpoint is conservative to reactionary. It has served their purposes different times and places in history.
SteveW
(754 posts)The Platform of the Democratic Party didn't even mention guns until well after the Zombies charted with "She's Not There."
But if you just add water, something might pop up, and you can call it liberal.
Incidentally, the gun-control laws we have seen (including the many dispensed with) are founded on the "White Supremacist" gun laws in the South. After the mid-1960s, Jim Crow was rousted from his nest -- but found a warm place to shit in the "liberal" big cities of NYC, Chicago, SF, Baltimore, and a very few others.
Some "liberal" position!
"Incidentally, the gun-control laws we have seen (including the many dispensed with) are founded on the "White Supremacist" gun laws in the South. After the mid-1960s, Jim Crow was rousted from his nest -- but found a warm place to shit in the "liberal" big cities of NYC, Chicago, SF, Baltimore, and a very few others."
You really can't be taken seriously after that...
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/did-democrats-give-up-in-gun-control-debate/
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Do you have actual, you know, FACTS to dispute it?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)didn't think so.
Why did Florida ban open carry in 1893? (hint: Watson v Stone 1941, Florida Supreme Court)
Why did Texas require a licence to own handguns in the late 19th century?
Why did South Carolina repeal their handgun ban in (passed in 1902) in 1965?
Check out North Carolina's handgun law, see when it was enacted
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Care to explain?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...we kinda noticed that even before you said a poster lost credibility by noting all gun control laws stem from racist policies.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)And I pointed out to you that your claim was incorrect.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Sad.
Here, have another cartoon:
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)you are obviously unaware that the NRA pays royalties to these cartoonists to reprint their "work". The result is the best motivation that money can buy for more support - a reminder to firearm owners that pro-restriction supporters hold them in contempt.
The NRA utilizes these cartoons in the same way a martial artist utilizes the force of his/her opponent -- as a means to turn the energy of their opponent against them.
So sincere thanks, ellisonz, for aiding our cause by undermining your own!
SteveW
(754 posts)Thanks for the link.
I had read the NYT editorial/analysis earlier this year, but had not perused the Platforms link mentioned therein. My memory still serves me well: The Zombies got there first!
I don't much care if you wish to take me seriously or not, but for your own benefit, you should read up on how gun-control laws came about in the cities mentioned; of particular note is NYC's "Sullivan Laws." These restrictions on firearms, including the corrupt "may issue" provision still in effect within the City, were based in large part on anti-Italian hysteria, promoted by NYC's boss-mayor (Irish? Couldn't stand the competition?). In fact, the '68 Gun Control Act, the first allusion to gun control in the Party Platform, and described by many as a response to high-profile assassination) was seen in a different light by some, including this gun-control advocate:
"[The 1968 Act was passed in part to] shut off weapons access to blacks, and since they (Congress) probably associated cheap guns with ghetto blacks and thought cheapness was peculiarly the characteristic of imported military surplus and the mail-order traffic, they decided to cut off these sources while leaving over-the-counter purchases open to the affluent."
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act
"Affluent." Indeed.
There is much more, of course.
The whole argument is predicated on the idea that Americans before the Civil War did not engage in any form of regulation before the modern gun industry.
It requires a sort of construction of early America is a a vacuum. It's like people who believe there was a Garden of Eden.
So you're saying everyone should be able to afford as many guns as they want and not bear any additional social responsibility for the burden they inflict: gotcha.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)There really were no restrictions before the Civil War.
Yes, people absolutely should have as many guns as they want and can afford. One who commits no crime has no responsibility for those who do.
SteveW
(754 posts)Actually, there was noticeable regulation: In the South. Many of the cases cited by gun-controller/banners are from court-rulings, both antebellum and Jim Crow era in Southern states. But we know what those were about.
Other regulations pertained to citizens only when they were called for militia duty, which required the citizen to bring his OWN firearm, suitable for service, and that he should know how to use it; otherwise, there was rather spotty regulation of firearms. Why? For the most part, people were not called up for militia service.
I really don't care how many guns a law-abiding citizen purchases. And "any additional social responsibility for the burden they inflict" (whatever "they" is) will be considered in a court of law, and not based not speculation, prediction, common sense, or for some in this forum, anxious anticipation. That's the way due process works, ellisonz.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)You also don't seem to care how many guns make into dangerous and criminal hands...
SteveW
(754 posts)I cannot make out your "text." Could you clarify, please.
BTW, I oppose the possession and use of guns by criminals and those adjudicated as mentally incompetent. Glad I cleared that up for you. Again.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Gun control is a faux-liberal position.
Fixed.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)[div class = excerpt]I'm not sure you're understanding "absolute."
No, actually I'm agreeing with what you said. No rights are "absolute." Hence your "crowded theater" analogy. But I'm disagreeing with your premise that some of them should be left up to the whims of the police. That's way too authoritarian and anti-democratic for my blood.
[div class = excerpt]I also kinda doubt you can be reasoned with; I'm not prepared to cede this country to the quickest draw.
Show me where I said we should cede this country to the quickest draw. You "kinda doubt" that I can be reasoned with? I would submit that you really haven't tried. All I've seen from you are broad-brush condemnations of all those who don't share your opinions. You really don't like to be disagreed with, do you.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)They're just not consistent. Ever done something illegal and been let go by the police on a whim? I have; my problem with the police is that they're not doing their job.
That's what it will come to; the Wild Wild West.
hack89
(39,171 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)OK?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)You know, every day I find myself disagreeing with Rick Perry is a good day.
hack89
(39,171 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)This is an important issue to most communities.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)The problem is the criminals.
Has nothing to do with acceptance and everything to do with an effective solution that does not rely upon either violating the rights of the law abiding, technology which does not yet exist, or a combination of the two.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)What we don't have is common sense or political will.
The problem is criminals getting their hands on legal guns. Go listen to the Bloomberg tapes, seriously do it.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)All of your proposals require violating the rights of the law abiding indiscriminately. I am grateful nobody has the "political will" to be an outright dictatorial tyrant.
Yes, the problem IS criminals - not the law abiding. At least you got THAT part right.
"The Bloomberg Tapes"? Oh puhleeze. Why would I want to listen to a bunch of staged bullshit by a known anti-gun politician who has already committed numerous legal violations - any one of which would get a private citizen arrested and thrown under the jail...
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)You don't care about the victims enough to do anything productive about it. That is the height of selfishness.
We have trigger locks, safes, tracking technology, a well trained mental health profession, and a police force that desperately wants to stop seeing the tragedy doing nothing further is producing.
Try putting yourself in a NYC police officers shoes in the Bronx for a minute. Please get a grip on somebody other than your own ego.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Since when are my rights dependent upon the feelings of a crime victim? Why the fuck should I care about the feelings of an NYC employee? Are you fucking serious? Do you REALLY believe my rights should be restricted so as to make some government functionary feel better? Are you insane?
I don't give two shits WHAT the police force wants. Really. Don't care. They work for me, not the other way around
My suggestion to you my friend is to get down from your statist horse and realize the people do not answer to the state.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)A cop who thinks his feelings supersede my rights has no business on the force.
There are a few ex-police officers who discovered that I have zero tolerance for cops who hold such beliefs. Yes - I got them terminated.
Fair Witness
(119 posts)The first is a patently obvious fact and the latter is the upshot of several Supreme Court decisions. Where I live, police response is typically on the order of 30 minutes...but the old canard still applies everywhere: When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away. You're more than welcome to try to disarm me...there are thugs much closer who'd like to try as well.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)You sound like you live in the boonies.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I'm a member of the public.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Facts are a bitch ellisonz. I realize you don't like them, but so be it.
The cops have no obligation to public safety. None. Squat. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Fair Witness
(119 posts)suggesting that's a reason to have us forfeit our rights to self-defense...if you are, you sound like you live on Mars. Perhaps you can regale us with some actual evidence that police are "obligated" to "protect and serve". I assure you we are not holding our breaths.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...as required by the Ninth Amendment. I'm suggesting no such thing - what I'm suggestion is that we take responsibility for our actions.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
What do you imagine the duty of the police are if not that? BTW I cam across some disturbing material from the gun lobby that's basically making the same baloney claim - why have police at all if everybody can just use a gun to defend themselves?
Seriously, consider what life is like in the slums of American cities - what it's like to hear gunfire in your community and know that someone is using a gun to take someone's life for nothing, and that tens of millions of Americans consider there imaginative version of the Second Amendment to be more important than your basic human rights.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)My ownership of a firearm in no way harms another. It does not affect your rights in any way.
As far as the police and their duties, I hate to tell you, but your idea that they have to protect you is wrong. That is settled law. Simple as that. End of discussion. It isn't a baloney claim, it is plain fact. You've been provided with the relevant citations. Read them.
We have the police because they arrest those who commit a crime. They do not protect anyone.
As far as "life in the slums of American cities", that in no way justifies restriction of my rights. Period. How you feel about it is utterly unimportant, and as usual, your feelings don't mean a thing in the face of reality. Once again, my ownership of firearms does not in any way harm you or anyone else. I am not responsible for a couple of recreational pharmaceutical salesmen shooting at each other. Nothing you can say is going to change that.
Fair Witness
(119 posts)of Independence which is of course an interesting and important historical document but which has absolutely NO bearing on civil law or rights. I notice you once again fail to produce any evidence that police are legally obligated to "protect and serve". I was a policeman myself for a while and I know firsthand that depending on them for protection is something only a fool would entertain, much less adopt.
If you're so worried about what happens in the slums, I suggest you work to eliminate the factors that produce them instead of attempting to subvert my rights and those of millions of other Americans to satisfy your UNprogressive agenda.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)doesn't that count for something?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...your right to firearms does does not surpass others rights to life and freedom.
I've never denied the right to self-defense. I've simply denied the right to irresponsible gun ownership as being inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
I'm just going to hazard that you were not a policeman in a major urban city. My old roommate was a police officer and EMS technician for the City of Chicago. He can tell you stories about gun violence that would pierce your shell of the belief in an absolutist rendition of the second amendment. Where do you think criminals get their guns?
Also, you discredit yourself when you say I have an "UNprogressive agenda," if you believe that to be true please go have some conversations with the majority of DUers who are in opposition to such ridiculous notions as the idea that your rights are "subverted" by reasonable measures to protect the public. What exactly was your purpose if a police officer if not to "protect and serve?"
Fair Witness
(119 posts)Population about 230,000 at the time. As to where criminals get their guns, how is that germane to the discussion? Where do stabbers get their knives? And are you actually proceeding through life harboring the delusion that you are going to somehow disarm me or the other 20 million Americans who fully intend to continue exercising our Constitutional rights? Ain't gonna happen, cupcake.
\
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Really...you must be pretty jaded to not ask that question...because it is the key question.
"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained."
- Mahatma Gandhi.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:54 AM
hack89
56. The Patriot Act was to ensure public safety
it gave the cops the kind of powers you feel they are capable of using in a responsible manner. Do you support the Patriot Act?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721786#post117
Response to hack89 (Reply #56)
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:35 PM
ellisonz
117. Yes. Next question.
I'm not going to get in a debate about it other than to say it was overwhelmingly approved and maintained for good reason.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I'm not a absolutist on civil liberties. Sorry to burst your bubble. I'm a Barbara Boxer liberal...you can hate me now.
"Law enforcement officers are never 'off duty.' They are dedicated public servants who are sworn to protect public safety at any time and place that the peace is threatened. They need all the help that they can get. - Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat - California
Democrats who Voted FOR the Patriot Act:
Bennet (D-CO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/26/senate-democrats-for-the-patriot-act-may-26/
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Wyden (D-OR)
And I repeat- your agenda is unprogressive
hack89
(39,171 posts)and the solution is simple - end the war on drugs and legalize recreational drugs.
Until you make gangs irrelevant they will continue to fight for turf and territory. And they will always have guns. If they can smuggle coke by the pallet load getting all the guns they want will not be a problem.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)BTW you're not seriously advocating legalizing meth and heroin are you?
hack89
(39,171 posts)so that addicts won't need to victimize others to feed their habits. Of course drug rehab will be offered free to all that want it. And by legalizing we can stop spending billions on prisons and spend that money on education and health care.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Well if we can afford to fund that, we can certainly afford to require/subsidize mandatory gun safes/trigger locks.
hack89
(39,171 posts)a medium sized one would be perfect - big enough to hold 4 rifles and 3 handguns.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I suggest making the investment lest your 4 rifles and 3 handguns get swiped while you're out of town.
Seriously...you probably should have bought at like number 2.
This is why it needs to be law - and yes, there are ways it could be subsidized.
hack89
(39,171 posts)So whats so bad about requiring owners to take such a measure? What's so bad about keeping the mentally ill from buying weapons? What's so bad about requiring common sense measures that all evidence suggests could reduce gun violence dramatically? Why do you need to be as well armed as your average National Guardsman?
hack89
(39,171 posts)mental health requirements already adequate - just need to be funded and enforced.
Draw the line at banning semi-automatic rifles and pistols.
Support expanded CCW with training requirements.
Since I am not a criminal and pose no threat to you, what difference does it make how many guns I have?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Well you'd be requiring someone spend additional funds to exercise a right. Would be not unlike requiring someone to pay a poll tax before voting.
The mentally ill (at least those adjudicated mentally incompetent) are already forbidden from owning firearms.
What "common sense" measures do you want enacted? Nothing I have seen so far is "common sense".
Frankly, I'm better armed than the average National Guardsman. They only carry a single medium power rifle and maybe a 9mm handgun. I've got access to a lot more than that. Has nothing to do with need, it has to do with what I choose to own. Sorry you don't get that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)perhaps that connection you allude to is non-existent.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)was not so wild outside of Ned Buntline novels and B westerns.
SteveW
(754 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)was about a couple of US Secret Service agents with really cool gadgets.
SteveW
(754 posts)Perhaps the only T.V. series or movie which put Grant's presidency in a positive light.
I wonder how many folks who invoke the specter of The Wild West in regards gun laws, but use "Wild Wild," have inadvertently picked up on the show's title; modernizing their stereotypes in the process.
hack89
(39,171 posts)racial profiling, warrant-less wire taps and searches, entrapment, beating OWS protestors - any of those ring a bell? And you want to leave your Constitutional rights to their discretion? Really?
Criminals enabled by a failed gun control system are the biggest threat - your civil liberties don't matter when your dead. I think it also might behoove you to think about why the police are so militarized...it has a whole lot to do with guns.
The courts of course would have supremacy over the matter. Think you've been wronged, take it to court, but otherwise you're just ignoring the problem.
hack89
(39,171 posts)why don't you start there?
Gun violence is on a steady decline - I have never been safer. Everyday the police have a less of a reason to be militarized.
But lets get back to the main issue here - with their history of racism, illegal searches and violence to protestors, why do you think the police will make the right choices when it comes to access to guns? But that is the point, isn't it? You know the police will do everything to restrict gun ownership - which is what you want. Police states are bad except when it comes to guns - right?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...influx of black market weapons to the streets.
Damn right, I do - and the Constitution allows for it - you already have to pass a criminal background check. Isn't that already police determining that right, just in an indirect fashion?
hack89
(39,171 posts)the police should not have the power to deny basic civil rights on a whim.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)A point you seem to have missed. Would you leave it to the police to decide what forms of protest are acceptable?
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)[div class = excerpt]you already have to pass a criminal background check. Isn't that already police determining that right, just in an indirect fashion?
No, it's the legal system determining that right. Big difference. When a NICS check is run on me, no police are involved. No police official gets to say, "No, not him." The only thing that carries any weight is what a court may have decided about me.
Then how do people get to jail to be charged for a crime - the police
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and being charged with a crime is different than being convicted.
You seem to be confusing charging with convicting.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)[div class = excerpt]Then how do people get to jail to be charged for a crime - the police
They don't get to decide the final disposition of your case. It's not a police state. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Police don't convict you, a jury or judge does.
A police officer may detain you given probable cause, and a judge issues an arrest warrant.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Do you really think this plays out like the civics book?
You seem to have an idealized view of the police force.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Further, they NEVER decide who is charged. That is a function of the DA's office.
You seem to have a insane view of the police force.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Seriously, ever ask yourself why the prisons are disproportionately populated by minorities.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Cops do not charge people. That's the DA's job. Cops don't find them guilty or imprison them. That's the court's job. Cops don't tell the courts what to do.
THAT is reality. What you have is some imaginary view based upon some idea that the police department has universal authority.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Police routinely get smacked down for overreaching.
Judges refuse to issue warrants, DA's refuse to indict, or judges dismiss cases.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Perhaps you need to review that civics book...
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)
there the evidence is presented and if the state has enough evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt, the individual is found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced by the judge.
The only involvement the police have in the matter is arresting the guy - and the arrest itself means precisely squat without a conviction.
Fair Witness
(119 posts)a "reasonable suspicion" (a legal albeit oft-misapplied concept) of a crime. Actual criminal charges are officially filed by civilian officials, usually the office of the 'district' attorney functioning under the auspices of the local judiciary. The cops are just taxi drivers. I'm a little surprised you don't know that since you're so exercised about civil liberties.
SteveW
(754 posts)...and pretending that gun prohibition is a policy by any other name gets you TWO (2) prohibitions in one.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)What other rights would you leave up to the local cops?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over the state of things such as unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct, and such.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it gave the cops the kind of powers you feel they are capable of using in a responsible manner. Do you support the Patriot Act?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I'm not going to get in a debate about it other than to say it was overwhelmingly approved and maintained for good reason.
hack89
(39,171 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Do I think it's perfect, no; I think more oversight would be better, but I've never bought the idea that someone has an unlimited right to privacy and that law enforcement can only often be effective if it is expedient.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43180202/ns/us_news-security/t/obama-europe-signs-patriot-act-extension/#.TvFIceZyciw
Do you support the Sovereign Citizens movement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizens
hack89
(39,171 posts)Police should have the discretion to deny Constitutional rights. Is there any thing about a police state that doesn't appeal to you.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Are you for or against the Sovereign Citizens movement...?
hack89
(39,171 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...government does not have the right to maintain "a well regulated Militia" and that doing so "infringes" on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Clearly, the Second Amendment does not provide for an individual right - it provides for a civic right and authorizes government to establish it as such including placing restrictions on private property use and exercise of the Second Amendment thereof i.e. limitations on possession and purchase.
The Second Amendment doesnt guarantee the right to have firearms at all, Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view one of the greatest pieces of fraud I repeat the word fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all
hack89
(39,171 posts)1. You support the Patriot Act
2. You think that police should have the discretion to deny people civil liberties
3. You agree with conservative republican judges
Interesting trend here.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)or progressive to support the Patriot Act. Are you saying Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, et al are "Sovereign Citizens".
I was going to ask how restoring a theocracy is "freeing" some place, but maybe now I know.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I'm a Barbara Boxer liberal.
On the renewal:
54 House Democrats supported it and over half of Senate Democrats.
Bennet (D-CO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/26/senate-democrats-for-the-patriot-act-may-26/
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)allusions to Buchenwald or the East German Secret Police. He holds the tactics of the Gestapo and the Stasi in high regard. Doubtless if he had lived in East German he'd have gleefully been one of the Stasi's inoffizielle Mitarbeiter. He loves the Patriot Act and thinks police should be able to arrest people he doesn't like and they just disappear...
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/koehler-stasi.html
"Worse than the Gestapo." Simon Wiesenthal, Nazi hunter
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Don't let facts get in the way though.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)But please realize that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil liberty where many believe it should protected strictly. It is not an absolute, as we all agree, but arbitrary rules and arbitrary evaluators are no way to protect a civil liberty.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)No rules and no protections = anarchy.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)not anarchy.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Because they know what's good for us and how to apportion our Civil Rights.
Holy fucking shit.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)...any more than they are qualified to judge who is competent to vote in elections. And yes, as we've seen, voted the wrong person in can lead to many hundreds of thousands of unwarranted deaths.
I agree with you that the 2nd is not an absolute right, but this is too much.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Until we do something about this, the Jared Lee Loughners are going to do their thing - and we're letting it happen because we're terrified of our fellow citizens. "A well regulated Militia" - please tell me what that means.
SteveW
(754 posts)Using the wild & wooly science of psychology to pass muster on a constitutional right is bad enough. But for some reason you want a "police psychologist" to determine who should or shouldn't own a gun is very peculiar, if you are a "liberal."
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Do you think the mentally ill should have guns?
Fair Witness
(119 posts)Are you sure you want to delegate that determination to them?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I say actually give the community the right to regulate itself instead of playing games. You don't trust the police to make ethical decisions when subject to review? Hint: They do it every day.
SteveW
(754 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Answer that question, and you'll have a leg to stand on.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Why do you believe I need to give up my rights to make a victim feel better?
How about you answer THAT question?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)To make less victims like this 14-year-old boy who was shot 15 times by three gunmen. How about you start thinking about people's rights other than your own.
SteveW
(754 posts)The Fifth Amendment: It's not just for dinner.
My legs are fine, thank you.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)The same could be said of the Ninth Amendment.
SteveW
(754 posts)If states/localities cannot (or will not) take the steps to adjudicate someone as mentally incompetent, then passing yet another law to "burden" these agencies will not do a thing.
If people are so fearful of the Lougners of the world; if they are so concerned that they will get a gun and commit mass-murder, then why do they mumble and walk away when one of these spittle-flying self-conversing insane people? Are they intimidated? Are they waiting for an effortless government mandate to clean up the problem when such does not exist?
BTW, Cho WAS adjudicated mentally-incompetent; yet the findings were not pushed upstream and recorded in the NICS records. In this case, probably because of over-worked bureaucracies.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)We can do something about the Jared Loughners. We can improve our mental health safety nets in this country. We can use existing law to help better get the mental help they need or involuntary commit them.
A well regulated militia general refers to a well ordered militia.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:25 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm talking about identifying the truly mentally ill, providing them treatment, and/or keeping them safe from all dangers.
Just preventing them access to a firearm is not sufficient.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)We are failing the mentally ill miserably in this country; we are failing ourselves, and we must do better.
Fair Witness
(119 posts)Just ask the Chinese politely to butt out? You have some very strange ideas.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)How did the Indians get the British out of India?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)And they realized the cost of keeping India would far exceed anything they could get out of it.
You REALLY think that's going to work with China?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)You seem to have a keyboard warrior syndrome because this is like the third time you did so in the last five minutes.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Good. Do I care? Nope. This is what happens in an open forum, son. If you cannot back up your bullshit, that isn't anyone's problem but yours.
Fair Witness
(119 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)At this point I'm just finding his contributions to be disruptive and not worth engaging - that's might right as a DUer - I don't believe that poster has any real interest in discussion and just interested in launching personal attacks. I'm done with him. Dude quite clearly states that his rights are more important than others rights and frankly I find that to be a disturbing position
SteveW
(754 posts)You seem willing to defer to the police, however. Peculiar for a liberal site.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Here's a recent link on UK crime stats. Big improvement on the right-wing rags like Daily Mail and Telegraph.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales
russ1943
(618 posts)The Guardian may be better than the rags like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph but if what the reader is seeking is information re crime stats for England and Wales then why not the source for those statistics, The Home Office?
Eg.
Provisional figures on police recorded firearm offences show a 13 per cent fall between 2009/10 and 2010/11. Firearm offences have shown a downward trend following rises between 2002/03 and 2005/06. Much of the fall over the last year was due to decreases in offences involving handguns (down 17%). However, provisional figures show 55 fatal injuries from firearm offences in 2010/11 (including the 12 homicide victims of the Cumbria shootings in June 2010), compared with 40 in the previous year. Serious injuries were down from 337 to 298 and slight injuries up from 1,537 to 1,593.
England Wales crime stats avail at;
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)just like ours and Canada's
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Why don't we just have the entire population of Great Britain immigrate to the United States. We will settle them in all the high crime areas and their natural tendency toward peaceful cohabitation will solve the problem of gun crime in America.
Problem solved.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Problem being the fact that Brits and guns don't go well together. You can't let the working class have access to guns, except when fighting the Hun. For some reason they hate the Hun even more than their own officers. Probably something to do with tea and soccer.
But I'm glad you're finally starting to think about solutions. Good on yer, mate.
And have a great Yule!
rrneck
(17,671 posts)if we just institute a four o'clock tea time in the United States it might give everyone a chance to take a break and think about what they're doing.
Also, maybe we should just send all the rednecks over there. It wouldn't be hard. We could just tell them there is a new stock car race; something like the Piccadilly 500. If we tell them there will be free beer and Moon Pies they'll all be over there in twenty four hours.
Googled "moon pie Christmas". Google can find anything but I can't find my ass. Sheesh.
Happy Holidays backatcha.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Most do not pass the sniff test for "common sense", but ignoring that....
> Limiting the number of firearms that a private citizen may keep in one place,
What is your number? Odds are it will be far lower than my number. When the number is exceeded, we then need to store the "extra" guns elsewhere? Securing multiple locations seems like a security risk.
> requiring them to be kept under lock when not in use
Secured storage is a good thing. On this we agree.
> having local police department ensure this basic safety requirement has been met before allowing someone to buy a firearm
Not a bad concept, but the problem is always in the implementation details, which were not specified.
> Limiting ammunition sells to only those who have passed a mental health screen and received license
The details in the implementation will be problematic, especially the "license" part. However, using the NICS system for the ammo purchases might get the job done.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)1. Let's say 2 per person unless you get a further permit with a valid reason i.e. target shooting, hunting, not just for toys sake.
2. Yeah, I mean I'm not saying not stored in a convenient place, just stored when it's not in use.
3. I think the police would be glad to do this. They're the one's who get called when someone decides to abuse their privilege.
4. Especially, if the NCIS were improved and mental health screening was done - why should someone with an illegally possessed firearm be allowed to walk in and buy ammunition. It boggles the mind - just consider that Jared Lee Loughner had to go to two Wal-Marts because the first one wouldn't sell him ammunition.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)We've discussed these "common sense measures" countless times.
Here we go again:
Limiting the number of firearms that a private citizen may keep in one place
What, exactly, would be the limit you had in mind?
And how, exactly, does preventing a person from having more guns than he can use at one time actually contribute to public safety?
and requiring them to be kept under lock when not in use,
I agree that people, at least people with children in their homes, should keep their firearms locked up. But you need to understand, as I have explained to you before, that the kinds of safes currently required by places like California do not offer much protection against theft. This is the one that I own:
http://www.stack-on.com/categories/security-cabinets-gun-cabinets/products/67
It meets the requirements of law set by the California Department of Justice for safe firearm storage. I bought it for about $150. It is nothing more than a lockable filing cabinet. Anyone with a crowbar could get into the safe within minutes. All it is really good for is keeping my children away from the firearms.
Is this sufficient for you?
having local police department ensure this basic safety requirement has been met before allowing someone to buy a firearm.
This is pretty much a waste of time. Anyone who wants a firearm who doesn't want to lock them up will simply lock them up for the police visit, and then unlock them again after the police visit. A better option is to simply have penalties for people who don't secure their firearms and then something bad happens with them as a result.
Limiting ammunition sells to only those who have passed a mental health screen and received license.
I don't have a problem with licenses so long as they preserve firearm ownership anonymity. I have explained how to achieve this before. Simply have a licensing system similar to what Illinois does, except make it opt-out, rather than opt-in.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)are you just the latest that likes to post spam about shootings and dance in the blood of the victims?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Also, I'm so not dancing. Are you dancing?
Response to ellisonz (Reply #4)
Post removed
ileus
(15,396 posts)Before we decide guns need to be banned are there other questions that need to be asked? Do my rights need destroyed so this doesn't happen? Hardly.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Read some of Mikeb2000's posts and you'll understand...
Just to clarify for the rules lawyers, this is not a callout or anything of the sort. I am simply explaining an obscure reference to another poster.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)over market share or employee theft. How do Pittsburgh's bong owners feel about funding capitalism at its worst? Their hands are not exactly clean (unless they grow their own or buy certified violence free)