|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1369624067 Message started by Midnightrider on 05/26/13 at 20:07:46 |
|
Title: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Midnightrider on 05/26/13 at 20:07:46 Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 For Unregistered Firearm After Saving Child’s Life : Freedom Outpost Where else but Washington D.C. could this story happen? Actually it could happen a lot of places in this country and that’s what is truly frightening. Back in January a boy was riding his bike when he was attacked by three Pit Bull Terriers. He was savagely maimed but a good samaritan likely saved his life by shooting and killing the first of three dogs. A police officer who heard the shot finished the job. But this man saved a child’s life and now he has been fined for doing so. In January The Washington Post reported: The bloody paw prints travel the length of a city block, from a Northwest Washington street corner where police said an 11-year-old was mauled by three pit bulls to the welcome mat at the dogs’ owner’s home. Two days after the attack, in which police said all three dogs were fatally shot, the prints were a reminder of what happened at Eighth and Sheridan streets on Sunday afternoon. Police said a neighbor and an officer shot the pit bulls as they sank their teeth into the boy’s legs, arms, stomach and chest. The boy underwent surgery and remains hospitalized, a family member said. One of the dogs managed to limp back to his house before he died, leaving the bloody trail up Eighth Street. The boy, the dog owner and the shooter live on the same block. An uncle of the victim’s said the boy was riding a new Huffy dirt bike with orange rims he had gotten for Christmas. The uncle said his nephew emerged from an alley onto Sheridan Street, where he collided with the pit bulls. D.C. police said the unleashed and unattended dogs attacked the boy before a neighbor who saw it went into his home, got his handgun and fired once, hitting one of the dogs. A D.C. police officer on bicycle patrol heard the shots, and authorities said he shot and killed the other two pit bulls. It was unclear from a police report exactly how many shots the officer fired. “The injuries are terrible,” the boy’s uncle said, adding that he saw all three dogs with their teeth clenched on the youth’s extremities when the neighbor and officer opened fire. “This boy is traumatized,” the man said. “He told me doesn’t want to go outside anymore. He’s too scared.” He also said his nephew was struck in the left foot by a bullet; police said they had no record that either a shot fired by the officer or the neighbor struck the boy. The Good Samaritan in the story is a man named Benjamin Srigley. So what does he get for saving this boy’s life? The Washington Times reports: Authorities last week made an agreement not to prosecute a Northwest D.C. man who used his unregistered handgun to kill a pit bull in order to stop it from mauling a child in his neighborhood. As part of the agreement, Benjamin Srigley, 39, was required to pay a $1,000 fine but will not have criminal charges filed against him for the three unregistered firearms and the ammunition that investigators found in his possession, said Ted Gest, a spokesman for the office of the attorney general. “We took it into account that he saved this boy’s life,” Mr. Gest said. Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition in the District is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, and prosecutors said Mr. Srigley could have faced up to seven criminal charges in the case. “In our recent memory this is a unique charge because of the unusual circumstances of this case,” said Mr. Gest, whose office generally prosecutes low-level crime in the District. They act like they did this man a favor. He doesn’t get jail time but still has to pay a $1000 fine. Is this justice? And what is this “or ammunition” statement about? Do you have to register both your firearms and your bullets in The District of Columbia? This is justice in Washington D.C. If a Good Samaritan that saves a child’s life gets a $1000 fine, just imagine what those armed protestors might face on July 4th. The Examiner had this take on the situation: How nice of them. So . . . instead of jail time and a criminal record, Mr. Srigley will “only” be fined $1,000. Good thing it wasn’t an entire Little League team he’d saved–at $1,000 per kid’s life saved, a guy could go bankrupt pretty quickly. Speaking of pit bull attacks and gun laws, the loved ones of a woman in Los Angeles probably wish there had been a “gun criminal” like Mr. Srigley around when she was sentenced by the gun-haters to die in the jaws of vicious dogs. Actually, and this probably has to be considered shocking generosity by D.C. standards, Mr. Srigley will even get his guns back (or at least the two that he did not use to save the boy’s life)–with the understanding that he will take them out of D.C., because he’s moving to Maryland (can’t help but wonder about Srigley’s choice of places to live, though). By the way, the owner of the three pit bulls is now in his own legal hot water–facing three counts each (one for each dog) of possession of a dangerous dog, having an unleashed dog and having a dog without a collar. The maximum penalty for those nine counts is very likely less than what Mr. Srigley could have faced for his seven victimless “crimes,” had the prosecutors decided to aggressively make an example of him. That prosecutors are punishing the owner of the dogs seems the height of hypocrisy–by punishing the man who stopped the attack, they’ve already shown that they’re on the side of killer dogs, rather than the people who stop them. Here’s the thing. A law that has to be broken in order to save the life of a child–to prevent him from being torn apart by vicious dogs–is very likely an evil law. And a “justice” system that punishes a man (even if “only” by fining him) for being a lifesaving hero–is institutionalized evil. Why, as a (theoretically) free citizen, does any American tolerate this? Whatever happened to the spirit of justice in this country? In most towns and cities this man would have been made a hero but not everywhere. In so many places, like D.C., people who make a difference are regarded as common criminals. The biggest victim is the boy who will carry emotional scars from that day for the rest of his life. But thanks to Benjamin Srigley, at least he has a life in front of him |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/27/13 at 08:39:00 “We took it into account that he saved this boy’s life,” Mr. Gest said. What they need to take into account is the CONSTITUTION ! Idiots |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/27/13 at 11:51:17 I guess having to register a gun obviously violates the CONSTITUTION. DC and NYC have a huge gun problem with guns trafficked from SC. Registering a gun will in effect allow the trafficking to be choked off while letting legit guns be sold and traded. Yea yea I am aware of the conspiracy theories ... yea register guns then confiscate them yea yea yea. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by dinsdale on 05/27/13 at 13:33:39 282932353A2F335B0 wrote:
Registration does no such thing. Black market guns are used in about 90% of gun crimes up here. And that's guns brought over an international border. You can't have pistols legally in the UK and yet gun crime with pistols is way up since the ban. You get jail in Jamaica for owning even ammunition and yet gun crime is rampant. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Dane Allen on 05/27/13 at 23:34:56 71706B6C63766A020 wrote:
Really?? Then how do you explain the THREE unregistered guns the good Samaritan had? |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/28/13 at 07:01:39 41646B60446969606B050 wrote:
Really?? Then how do you explain the THREE unregistered guns the good Samaritan had?[/quote] That's why he is being fined. Now he would register them. That way criminals cant register and the unregistered guns will slowly be squeezed out in subsequent uses. I guess they wont be, cos the road called I 95 still works and it goes from SC where you can buy a gun if you are a mass murderer ... so while good samaritans are being harassed SC is handing em out to convicted felons ... its useless. But the problem is not DC or NYC, its SC. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/28/13 at 10:11:31 Actually, registration IS a restriction,,so yes, UN Constitutional. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Pine on 05/28/13 at 11:53:06 2F2E35323D28345C0 wrote:
I am kinda curious. I bolded just one part of your statement. Just focusing on that one little statement -DC and NYC have a huge gun problem with guns What does that mean. Cause I really don't understand. So in MS we have about 5 guns per person. But we don't have "a gun problem". If a billion guns were put in a room, with a trillion rounds of ammo thrown in to boot. What would be the problem? Would the guns spontaneously attack people.. or blow up.. rape .. pillage... oh wait... attack little boys on bikes? I submit that no place in the USA ever had a "gun problem". They have a CRIME problem, but that's not a gun problem. I can guarantee.. if every murderer (regardless of tool used) were put to death... the crime problem would go down and the "gun problem" would be a non-issue. What the story above proves (to me) is; that making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens by blaming the tool used in the crime instead of the criminal and his actions.. is a poor poor excuse for attempting to provide security to the populace. If I have no fear of be being caught... if I have no fear of being punished.. if I have no fear of the punishment... the law is moot. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/28/13 at 11:59:58 The state has no power over the law abiding, therefore, the state MUST pass laws making action illegal in Order to Obtain the power to crush the citizen. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/28/13 at 12:09:37 That's because you have bolded the wrong part. This part - DC and NYC have a huge gun problem with guns trafficked from SC Nearly all the guns in the hands of criminals in DC or NYC is bought legit from GA or SC or other states without any gun laws and trafficked to NYC or DC. Gun registration can be used to stop and prosecute that trafficking, but it needs to be done nationwide. SC and MS and other states dont per say have a gun problem, but they are richly contributing to the NYC and DC criminals ability to shoot a few rounds in a drive by, get rid of the gun, get the next gun and repeat. Yea yea yea I've heard all the arguments about law abiding citizens and guns and what not ... however there is no way to keep it out of the hands of criminals unless you account for every gun out there. A guy may turn into a criminal, say he threatens or beats up someone ... you dont know he has guns. He may go to court, go to jail etc, and come back out in a few months and have the guns to commit a bigger assault. Gun registration is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Your right to own a gun is predicated upon you not being a criminal ? right ? If that's not your point of view, never mind registration, you might as well hand out guns to any criminal who wants one. SC does. Anyway if you think that being a convicted criminal should prevent a person from owning a gun - how do you stop the criminal who starts out gets arrested and upon release he has guns cos he had em from before ? Guns all by themselves dont do squat. The problem is that they are in the hands of criminals. They commit crimes and get rid of the gun, and get the next gun ... Or they ciommit crimes, go to jail, come back and still have the guns they used to. That would be stopped by gun registration. Its like a breathalyser in your car for a DUI. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/28/13 at 12:37:26 What we need to do and it could be done very very easily, just need to get everyone involved - especially NRA and gun companies to agree to it and needs to be implemented nationwide - not just in NYC only and not in NC. The gun companies should put the serial number and the rifling marks into a database. Then we just keep a record of all the sales etc etc to whom it ends up with. Then the old pre registration guns - we do a registration drive, we get the riflinf and serial number and the owner. That way when a gun is used in a crime - from the bullets left @ the crime scene - we can locate the owner. Now what happens when the gun isn't registered - we have the marks, and the criminal knows that, so they will have to get rid of it. They would, and get the next gun only that they dont know the marks are already in the system. The un registered guns will keep getting tossed away, and in a few years we should be down to the "rarely used" gun that is likely sitting with a non criminal ... or is lost or disposed of. There are plenty of guns out there, however criminals are constantly getting new guns and disposing off their old guns. This should do nothing for the law abiding citizen. It will end up convicting all the criminals in short order. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by 45acp on 05/28/13 at 17:27:37 do you know how many guns are in america? it would not be easy or cheap to record all that info. who is supposed to pay for all this? i will not register my guns ever. the government has no right to know what guns i have. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/29/13 at 08:03:32 7A75636375607975627375100 wrote:
That is a common side effect of the paranoia fed by the NRA. In fact the NRA wants the criminals to have guns, so they can sell more guns to the public saying criminals always get guns. In any case, there are a lot fewer guns in action that you think. Most of the guns we dont know about are in the bottom of the river or buried somewhere after a crime was committed. Anyway 10% or fewer of the guns are in the hands of criminals, and those are constantly getting turned - they dispose of it and get new ... stop that "flipping" and gun crime will plummet. 90%+ of guns do nothing, or do good. If we had all the data on them, like ownership, rifling marks and serial number, the other 10% or even less, closer to 1% likely, will soon enough get used in crime and end up getting disposed off, replaced by guns we know that info about. Of course that will make gun crime less and less of a factor, and hence less paranoia ... and so no mo business for the NRA. You know let me use this racing analogy. Suzuki, and all companies pay the few riders who race their products. They pay them several million a year. Guess what ... the no talent and no brain a$$hat with a credit card passing you on the left on 1 wheel is a wanna be who buys that myth that he's the next Valentino Rossi. If we look @ the NRA that way, they are making sure criminals always get guns. You and I are the suckers who have the $$$ to buy their product cos "criminals will always have guns". We register every gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen along with the rifling pattern, and register every new gun ... few years we will have no criminals with guns. It would be like leaving you business card @ a crime scene. Since the non criminal public will be armed ... they cant resort to knife crime ... its like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Of course it wont stop the crackpot on a rampage ... we're gonna need $100 cash only bullets for that. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by 45acp on 05/29/13 at 14:45:43 it would never work. and it wouldnt stop crime. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by 12Bravo on 05/30/13 at 06:26:15 Criminals are called 'criminals' for a reason: they do NOT follow any laws. More laws will not stop criminals. How well did Prohibition work or the War on Drugs? Both have not worked and have only cost tax payers money. A criminal will get what he/she wants no matter what laws are on the books. More laws won't solve crime problems |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Pine on 05/30/13 at 07:10:22 7E7F64636C79650D0 wrote:
I like this... the debate (without ruffling feathers). So Looking at this post lets look at things: SC and MS and other states dont per say have a gun problem, We seem to agree on this point. The question then is why NYC has a gun problem and MS does not, when clearly there are just as many guns in MS as in NYC? Most would point to poverty.. except that MS is the poorest state in the nation and has been since the civil war. So its not the guns, and its not poverty... what is it? What ever IT is .. that should be the problem we go after. Gun registration can be used to stop and prosecute that trafficking, but it needs to be done nationwide. The problem that many people myself included) with line of reasoning is that it makes a criminal out of everyone (that owns a gun) immediately. Everyone is criminal... but now we can find the gun used in a criminal action. Many people are very opposed to being "made" a criminal when in fact they did nothing wrong. And story speaks to just this issue. The "hero" in the story was a "criminal" all along as he had not registered his gun. He never hurt anyone... he didn't actively use his gun to commit any crimes.. but HE IS A CRIMINAL. Your right to own a gun is predicated upon you not being a criminal ? right ? Yes..... BUT: In the USA a person is considered INNOCENT until proven guilty. Registration makes you guilty immediately (a criminal) until you act to become no longer guilty for a time. Registration is predicated on making everyone a criminal first, then conceding innocence later. Anyway if you think that being a convicted criminal should prevent a person from owning a gun - how do you stop the criminal who starts out gets arrested and upon release he has guns cos he had em from before ? Hang them. Pretty much stops them from ever hurting anyone again. And his partners get the message real quick too. Sri - I really do understand your logic, and I completely appreciate that your attempting to come up with solutions that work both ways-keep guns from criminals and yet let others have their guns. I hope that you can use what I wrote to maybe refine your ideas. The USA could use people to look at the issue and find a logical/workable solution. I want a solution, I want criminals to be stopped... just not at the cost of me being made into a criminal. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/30/13 at 07:16:50 3536467665726B040 wrote:
How do you know any of these have not worked ? The war on drugs have been on for 20 or more years. How would you know what the drug problem will have been without it. Of course there is a supply side war as well as a demand side war. The demand side IMHO is more effective than supply side but we have been fighting both. You dont know what it will have been. There was a crack epidemic in the 80's and 90's. We dont have that now. There was a meth epidemic later in the 90's, again - not any more. It has to be compared to the case where it would have been if there had not been a "war on it" Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/30/13 at 07:24:13 744D4A41504B56240 wrote:
I like this... the debate (without ruffling feathers). So Looking at this post lets look at things: SC and MS and other states dont per say have a gun problem, We seem to agree on this point. The question then is why NYC has a gun problem and MS does not, when clearly there are just as many guns in MS as in NYC? Most would point to poverty.. except that MS is the poorest state in the nation and has been since the civil war. So its not the guns, and its not poverty... what is it? What ever IT is .. that should be the problem we go after. Gun registration can be used to stop and prosecute that trafficking, but it needs to be done nationwide. The problem that many people myself included) with line of reasoning is that it makes a criminal out of everyone (that owns a gun) immediately. Everyone is criminal... but now we can find the gun used in a criminal action. Many people are very opposed to being "made" a criminal when in fact they did nothing wrong. And story speaks to just this issue. The "hero" in the story was a "criminal" all along as he had not registered his gun. He never hurt anyone... he didn't actively use his gun to commit any crimes.. but HE IS A CRIMINAL. Your right to own a gun is predicated upon you not being a criminal ? right ? Yes..... BUT: In the USA a person is considered INNOCENT until proven guilty. Registration makes you guilty immediately (a criminal) until you act to become no longer guilty for a time. Registration is predicated on making everyone a criminal first, then conceding innocence later. Anyway if you think that being a convicted criminal should prevent a person from owning a gun - how do you stop the criminal who starts out gets arrested and upon release he has guns cos he had em from before ? Hang them. Pretty much stops them from ever hurting anyone again. And his partners get the message real quick too. Sri - I really do understand your logic, and I completely appreciate that your attempting to come up with solutions that work both ways-keep guns from criminals and yet let others have their guns. I hope that you can use what I wrote to maybe refine your ideas. The USA could use people to look at the issue and find a logical/workable solution. I want a solution, I want criminals to be stopped... just not at the cost of me being made into a criminal. [/quote] All these points with circular logic. NYC has a problem. People ... too many people. You want to kick Em all out ? Gun crime will be put to a quick and peaceful end once all the criminals know the gun they shoot will point back to them. That way you can keep you gun and kill all the beer cans you want. Your logic is like this "We need to keep these guns to defend ourselves against the govt that is comming to take these guns". My point is not all just gun registration. We need to get the serial number, the owner and the rifling into 1 database. That will entirely prevent the loose and free guns being used in crime. We need to implement all the laws on the books and get it all current as well as put this new information in. Criminals love being untraceable. We make it traceable and they will drop guns as their weapon of choice. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by 45acp on 05/30/13 at 07:42:28 they will still be ciminals with or without guns. taking away guns doesnt take away criminals. your war against guns is like me saying im mad at mcdognalds for making me fat, while im sitting in taco hell eating the 5 buck box. it just doesnt pan out. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Pine on 05/30/13 at 08:16:17 2A2B3037382D31590 wrote:
I like this... the debate (without ruffling feathers). . . . . . [/quote] All these points with circular logic. NYC has a problem. People ... too many people. You want to kick Em all out ? Gun crime will be put to a quick and peaceful end once all the criminals know the gun they shoot will point back to them. That way you can keep you gun and kill all the beer cans you want. Your logic is like this "We need to keep these guns to defend ourselves against the govt that is comming to take these guns". My point is not all just gun registration. We need to get the serial number, the owner and the rifling into 1 database. That will entirely prevent the loose and free guns being used in crime. We need to implement all the laws on the books and get it all current as well as put this new information in. Criminals love being untraceable. We make it traceable and they will drop guns as their weapon of choice. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] ah Sri... I spent a lot of time thinking that all up! at least give me something... hhahaha you know though.. hmmm "You want to kick Em all out ?" Wonder how that might work. I tell you one thing.. it WOULD be effective. Maybe get rid of rent control. Either you can afford to live there or leave. Maybe raise taxes on apt buildings. So instead of making it easy to stay.. make it easy to go. There are whole ghost towns in mid-America. Just don't send them down here! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/30/13 at 08:23:45 3837212137223B37203137520 wrote:
Yea and criminals without guns either get out gunned, or are much slower in committing their crimes or start not committing crime - all of which are great options. Guns are bigger problems in some locations than others. Sadly since roads work so very well, we need to clamp down all over. Piece meal wont work unless you have a border @ each county/state etc. Yea getting rid of rent control in NYC will get some of the bottom income, then the rich people can clean their own toilets ... NYC could use to lose 5million people. Sadly it also is greener to cram more into a smaller space. BTW I had friends back in the 90's who used to never heat their apartment. They were basically getting their neighbors heat ... cant beat free heat and rent control. And once we start eating insects, there is an endless food source, cos they can live off the cockroaches. And they currently are, they just dont know it. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/30/13 at 08:35:18 The left has driven social policy for decades.. look where we are. The only places things improve are where the left gets rejected, |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by 12Bravo on 05/30/13 at 08:52:22 61607B7C73667A120 wrote:
How do you know any of these have not worked ? The war on drugs have been on for 20 or more years. How would you know what the drug problem will have been without it. Of course there is a supply side war as well as a demand side war. The demand side IMHO is more effective than supply side but we have been fighting both. You dont know what it will have been. There was a crack epidemic in the 80's and 90's. We dont have that now. There was a meth epidemic later in the 90's, again - not any more. It has to be compared to the case where it would have been if there had not been a "war on it" Cool. Srinath.[/quote] Come to Missouri and you will see that there STILL is a severe meth problem. And it was proven that Prohibition did NOT work. Again, why blame the tool for what the idiot holding it did! I guess that we better ban automobiles because they cause drunk driving, ban forks because they cause obesity, ban texting because it causes bad grammar, etc........... |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/30/13 at 09:06:51 Logic gets trumped by that never ending search for the perpetual "Warm Fuzzy",, theyre addicted,, |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/30/13 at 09:55:10 716E686F72754474447C6E62291B0 wrote:
That must be why SC is @ the top for everything good ... and since you probably dont know ... they are @ the bottom for all the good and @ the top for all the bad. Its a 100+ years of republican run state. Welfare queen and some of the last in education and everything else. I know first hand, they are next door, I get all their local news being under 10 miles from their powerful radio stations. When Nikki Haley came up with a plan to cut welfare from 270 to 216 and implemented it, one of the radio stations pretty much summed it up as such - Nikki Haley cuts welfare received by SC by 20%. The people of New Jersey thank her. Left leaning states have long out produced and out paid into the tax and welfare system the right leaning states have been free loading on. 8 of the top 10 states in terms of dollars out flow to inflow (get more than they pay in) 8 of the top 10 are republican states and some have been red for centuries. The other 2 are Maryland and VA where the federal govt paper pushers set up shop. We are not blaming the tool, we are using that "tool" to find the idiot holding it, and we do that by knowing all the tools and what marks they leave. We have not banned automobiles but we have registered them, and we have installed breathalisers in the cars of offenders. We also have spell checks in text editors, and we are putting up labels on food. BTW forks - who eats burger with a fork ... forks have very little to do with obesity, you can blame a burger wrapper. But we have calories listed. You ahve to eat ... oh wait, its not in the constitution, guess we dont then. Missouri's meth problem - would ahve been worse without any enforcement. Prohibition was 1/2 assed and done a few years. If it should work, we need to ahve stuck with it for longer. Few years of anything and state wise and city wise anything wont work. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Paraquat on 05/30/13 at 11:14:57 383922252A3F234B0 wrote:
That must be why SC is @ the top for everything good ... and since you probably dont know ... they are @ the bottom for all the good and @ the top for all the bad. Its a 100+ years of republican run state. Welfare queen and some of the last in education and everything else. I know first hand, they are next door, I get all their local news being under 10 miles from their powerful radio stations. When Nikki Haley came up with a plan to cut welfare from 270 to 216 and implemented it, one of the radio stations pretty much summed it up as such - Nikki Haley cuts welfare received by SC by 20%. The people of New Jersey thank her. Left leaning states have long out produced and out paid into the tax and welfare system the right leaning states have been free loading on. 8 of the top 10 states in terms of dollars out flow to inflow (get more than they pay in) 8 of the top 10 are republican states and some have been red for centuries. The other 2 are Maryland and VA where the federal govt paper pushers set up shop. We are not blaming the tool, we are using that "tool" to find the idiot holding it, and we do that by knowing all the tools and what marks they leave. We have not banned automobiles but we have registered them, and we have installed breathalisers in the cars of offenders. We also have spell checks in text editors, and we are putting up labels on food. BTW forks - who eats burger with a fork ... forks have very little to do with obesity, you can blame a burger wrapper. But we have calories listed. You ahve to eat ... oh wait, its not in the constitution, guess we dont then. Missouri's meth problem - would ahve been worse without any enforcement. Prohibition was 1/2 assed and done a few years. If it should work, we need to ahve stuck with it for longer. Few years of anything and state wise and city wise anything wont work. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] You're not putting a breathalizer in my car because I have not yet committed a crime with it. You don't penalize innocents before they commit crimes. You don't penalize innocents when a certain individual commits a crime. Calories aren't listed everywhere and a spell check does nothing because you wrote "hvae" twice. It doesn't matter anyway because it's post mortem given that you have already pressed "Post". --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/30/13 at 11:29:04 4574677464607461150 wrote:
But your car is registered and insured isn't it. The breathalyser is the equivalent of taking away your gun after you have committed a crime. Unless you want criminals to own guns ... Calories are there in all fast foods, mainly because they have been nailed for causing obesity. You write "hvae" my spell check pops up right there. Registering a car and registering a gun are the same thing. That way when you commit a DUI they know what car to slap the breathalyser onto. They dont know that with guns unless you register. Seriously if we had rifling marks, and owner and serial number on most guns, it will nearly eliminate gun trafficking as well as those random walk into a convenience store shoot up the clerk and take the $. You might as well drop your business card on the desk. That information gets around that we got all this data, you know what will happen ... criminals will stop using guns. Its almost what they are doing in India. They are creating a full on biometric index of everyone. Over 1 billion people, and there is a drive to get everyone an ssn, and get all biometrics on file. We do that for a gun. It will almost in a year or 2 eliminate gun criminals. Remember I said "Gun criminals" ... it may increase knife criminals and do nothing for "gun psycho's". Gun criminals wont be able to use the gun. They will not get away if they do. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/30/13 at 11:57:59 And a very big and important point that the NRA and all the gun lovers like to ignore - Meth, fast food, spelling typo's, and everything else usually kill/hurt/stupidify the user of said product. Guns kill/hurt/maim other people and not the user of said product. Cars may be used to hurt strangers, but usually you wont find enough people on the street except maybe in NYC to mow enough people down and kill them. The fact that in a gun debate all the rest of this pops up implies gun owners dont have a real need to engage in a meaningful comparison. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Pine on 05/30/13 at 13:04:36 56574C4B44514D250 wrote:
But your car is registered and insured isn't it. The breathalyser is the equivalent of taking away your gun after you have committed a crime. Unless you want criminals to own guns ... Calories are there in all fast foods, mainly because they have been nailed for causing obesity. You write "hvae" my spell check pops up right there. Registering a car and registering a gun are the same thing. That way when you commit a DUI they know what car to slap the breathalyser onto. They dont know that with guns unless you register. Seriously if we had rifling marks, and owner and serial number on most guns, it will nearly eliminate gun trafficking as well as those random walk into a convenience store shoot up the clerk and take the $. You might as well drop your business card on the desk. That information gets around that we got all this data, you know what will happen ... criminals will stop using guns. Its almost what they are doing in India. They are creating a full on biometric index of everyone. Over 1 billion people, and there is a drive to get everyone an ssn, and get all biometrics on file. We do that for a gun. It will almost in a year or 2 eliminate gun criminals. Remember I said "Gun criminals" ... it may increase knife criminals and do nothing for "gun psycho's". Gun criminals wont be able to use the gun. They will not get away if they do. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] Now Sri... I have been letting all the others have their turn.. but you said something here that is VERY incorrect: Registering a car and registering a gun are the same thing. No its not.. not even close. Look it up. Driving a car is a privilege. You have no "rights" to driving a car. Owing a gun is RIGHT as specified in the constitution. Thus my whole post above... Registration assumes one cannot have access until the permission is given. Ie you are a criminal until to comply. This works well for privilege. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/30/13 at 13:34:04 7F46414A5B405D2F0 wrote:
The case being made for in car breathalysers in lieu of licence being revoked is that the requirement to drive also is constitutuional - Its covered under "Pursuit of happiness". When your livelihood depends on driving, you have to commit a lot more than 1 DUI to lose it. Registration in the case of guns obviously is to keep a trail on guns being sold and traded. As in - You may own a gun used only for good, you register it, you sell it to trafficker and record it - then trafficker sells in NYC to armed robber. We find bullets, trace it to your gun, find the trafficker who bought from you, and toss him in jail for armed robbery. Good trafficker out of business. Repeat. Till armed robber is caught. I dont see anything regarding permission in registering a gun, especially one you already own. Its about keeping a trail of what is sold etc etc. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by 12Bravo on 05/30/13 at 13:42:59 I guess trying prohibition for 13 years (1920-1933) wasn't long enough to work. http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure And the war on drugs has been going on since the early 70's (about 40 years). http://www.ibtimes.com/war-drugs-total-failure-statistics-prove-it-291447 AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847 And from Great Britain http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/great-gun-control-fallacy-thomas-sowell Oh wait, I forgot facts shouldn't get in the way of 'fuzzy feel good' emotional decisions. Pine is correct - driving is a privilege while gun ownership (along with freedom of religion/speech) is guaranteed as god given right by the US Constitution. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Pine on 05/30/13 at 14:02:08 2223383F302539510 wrote:
The case being made for in car breathalysers in lieu of licence being revoked is that the requirement to drive also is constitutuional - Its covered under "Pursuit of happiness". When your livelihood depends on driving, you have to commit a lot more than 1 DUI to lose it. Registration in the case of guns obviously is to keep a trail on guns being sold and traded. As in - You may own a gun used only for good, you register it, you sell it to trafficker and record it - then trafficker sells in NYC to armed robber. We find bullets, trace it to your gun, find the trafficker who bought from you, and toss him in jail for armed robbery. Good trafficker out of business. Repeat. Till armed robber is caught. I dont see anything regarding permission in registering a gun, especially one you already own. Its about keeping a trail of what is sold etc etc. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] I am afraid you are mistaken with regards to driving a car. Its been through the courts many many times. Driving a car is a privilege... it can be taken away for any reason.. or even no reason. "pursuit of happiness" does not trump that driving is a privilege. Driving privileges are locally determined. Yes, if a local area deems that one DUI is enough to revoke the privilege.. its a done deal. Needing your car to go to work trumps nothing as well. The law is well documented and well tested in the courts. Driving is a privilege that can be revoked at any time for any reason. I dont see anything regarding permission in registering a gun, especially one you already own. I think I know what you are saying here, but I may not be clear on it. If you are saying that registration of owned guns occurs are at the point of sale.. then yes federally, but it depends locally. Obviously the man in the story already owned his guns, but never registered them, thus he was charged a fine as a criminal. In the state of MS, I do not have to "proactively" register my guns. And a private sale (that does not cross state borders) does not have to be registered. Any sale by a licensed dealer, and any sale that crosses state borders must be registered. This is includes all person to person private sales crossing state lines.. which must be facilitated by licensed dealers at both ends, and thus be registered. In the state of MS. Gun Registration does not "normally" leave the firearms dealer. They are required to keep the paper files on location for-ever. Generally, once a quarter the local FBI will come by to verify that the paperwork is accessible and is being keep in accordance to proper procedure. During these quarterly checks the registration is not checked for validity or any other checks. A "gun check" as done by the firearms dealer involves a phone call ( voice) to the local county law enforcement or FBI. The Drivers license number is given over the phone and check is done for outstanding warrants or criminal actions that would preclude new owner from taking possession. This very "low key" registration was the only way any type checks would pass by voters. In order for the FBI or any government entity to gather up all the data on the gun ownership.. every dealer would have to have their paper files gathered up physically from across the state. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by 45acp on 05/30/13 at 22:27:42 whats after guns? do knives need serial numbers and records? do bats? slingshots? big rubber dildos? it just wont work. its a stupid idea. and you still havent told me whos going to pay for it? it would take a thousand years to run that many guns through your make believe system. are we really supposed to let the government hold onto our guns while they are waiting to run their bs tests. the same government that wants to take them away. like i said stupid idea. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Midnightrider on 05/31/13 at 00:14:17 Its our country and we need to take it back. Arm the citizens, teach them how to shoot and your gangs will disappear. Imagine a carload with 4 armed citizens driving up to a drug dealer. Imagine whats going to happen. The cops wont do it, too much paperwork. All the cops want to do anymore is attack old women and innocents, where they know they wont get hurt. Protect and serve has become a joke. Concealed carry is one of the greatest laws this country has ever seen. There would be a dead kid in Washington if that man with a bucket of balls hadn't decided to break a stupid law and carry. Those of you who don't like civilians with guns would have a dead kid now. I know I'm gonna get blasted but if armed civilians were at Sandy Hook the death toll would have been lower or maybe not at all. Gun free zones are shooting ranges for crazies. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Paraquat on 05/31/13 at 06:15:17 3E3F24232C39254D0 wrote:
So... a bandaid solution? Why not address the root issue? 56594F4F594C55594E5F593C0 wrote:
My friend hosted a killer party back in my teens. Let's just say that what I found under his sister's bed should have been registered as a lethal weapon. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/31/13 at 06:18:59 OK OK all sorts of points - mostly all repeats. The guns he was fined for had to have been registered. No one said anything about waiting to use them etc etc, register them is register them. Yea yea I know second amendment. They also dont say anything about criminals in the second. So I guess criminals get all those rights too. Why dont we start @ the right to vote for criminals, as well as all the rest. Now that we dont want criminals to have guns, the only way to prevent that is gun registration. The whole pay for it scenario is a republican crutch. You want a gun, you pay for that part. Same as registration of a car. The second amendment says nothing about guns should be cheap, or anything else in any of the other rights that involve expenses regarding anything else. What if you lived 10 miles away from the voting station and had no car. We dont care. Same case with guns. And dont keep parrotting australia and crime and england and crime. They have crime, not gun crime. If we eliminate guns getting into crimnial hands and registration is required as is data on rifling to do so, only people that have guns will be the ones thatfollow all the rules. Including the stupid registration rule. See what happens to violent crime then. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/31/13 at 06:27:07 6352415242465247330 wrote:
So... a bandaid solution? Why not address the root issue? --Steve[/quote] Yea ignore the "pretty good" because you dont have "perfect". No place in the world has no crime. In places where there were no guns, like in India in the 70's, there was pick pockets, petty theft, break ins, the ocassional stabbing even and all sorts of crime. No one got killed, but people lost plenty of $$. Maybe that is the only acheivable target. The US of 2013 is likely to be better. Plenty of legal guns in homeowners hands. Much of that will really deter criminals. Its almost a case where the only people who have guns are going to be law abiding citizens. Obviously the NRA doesn't want that. They want to sell guns to criminals, so their cover is "criminals will never go through background checks" and they want to sell the good people guns cos their mantra is "the onlything that stops a bad guy with a gun is agood guy with a gun". Hell no. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is the fact that the gun will promptly be traced back to him. That of course means guns sales will plummet. The NRA is into selling guns to both sides. Like I think Bush's family did during WW2. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Midnightrider on 05/31/13 at 07:19:10 No law ever written will prevent crime period! The war on drugs, prohibition, etc, they've only increased crime |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/31/13 at 07:25:32 0E2A272D2A242B37312A272631430 wrote:
How would you know what it will have been without that law in place ? Prohibition didn't work, but we implemented it very 1/2 assed, and for just a decade. Who lets in canadian trucks with prohibition in place. For gun laws to work, we need canada to go along after we get all the states on the same page. We also need to get mexico to go along, but mexico currently send us drugs, we may just be trading guns for drugs. However now what is happening is that drugs come in and guns go out. If we reverse that gun trend, we will 1/2 the drug problem. They will be making return runs empty handed. Anyway registering guns is a first baby step. We just need an owner on file and rifling data on each one. Traceability will stop a criminal. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 05/31/13 at 11:24:06 1F3B363C3B353A26203B363720520 wrote:
The idea that you can prevent crime is like making pure vacuum. Not possible. How much of it can you cut down and can you reduce the severity is the question. If you turn 100 murders into 10 its a huge success, If you have converted murders into beatings you've acheived success. If you turn armed robbery into pickpockets again success. Laws can affect that. As can a lot of other things like economic opportunity and cutting down on drugs etc etc. 1F3B363C3B353A26203B363720520 wrote:
The war on drugs and prohibition were intended to reduce drugs and alcohol. They were not to reduce crime. However prohibition did bring in spectacular crime and NASCAR. If that's not a reason to drive you to drink, I dunno what is. Lots of laws however draconian they may be do work. DUI laws work very well IMHO. The hordes of people on DUI cycles (mopeds and scooters) is enough proof. If they've not stopped drinking atleast they have stopped driving something that could kill pedestrians. Now they can only maim them. The un intended consequence of the DUI laws are that the moped fools get on the road and hold up traffic - you and I going into work. But you cannot argue that keeping drunks in cars off the road is a benifit to any of us who has chosen to throw our lot in a 350 lb bicycle. Did it eliminate Drunk driving - no, can it be implemented better yes, is is all 100% benefit to the general public - no, but overall has it kept drunks in cars down ? YES. You can still be hit by a drunk in a car, however you're less likely to be hit by a drunk in a car than say 10 years ago. That squeeze is what crime fighting is all about. Crime reduction is the name of the game. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Midnightrider on 06/01/13 at 19:38:58 "How would you know what it will have been without that law in place ?" I'll tell you how. Conn. has a no assault weapons ban. Didn't work to well at Sandy Hook did it? Aint gonna work nowhere. You keep talking about all the crime where you live. There's laws against that but evidently they're not working either. We need to get a bunch of good ol boys and fill WD's pond up. Don't want the turtles and crawdads to go hungry. The cops shot and killed a 74 year old well respected, well liked white man going to his neighbors house because the alarm had gone off. That's about what cops are good for anymore. They want police the minority neighborhoods because they're scared. They beat up and shoot at innocent women. I'm sure they're some good ones left out there but these new generation of police officers are a danger to society. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/02/13 at 16:57:32 The REason the People were given for the war on drugs was to reduce drug use & crime,, but, after years & years of this war, what we have seen is a tremendous business in drugs & an increased police presence & more people in prison than anywhere else,, REgardless of the "reason" for it, it is a failed program., There are news articles about banks that have been shown to be involved in laundering drug $$$,, but what banking officials are in prison? Our stock market is open to investment by drug lords & they WILL invest in it OR they will be targeted & taken down, The corruption is beytond the ability of most to grasp. Youve been taught all your lives that you live in some "Boy Scout of the World" country & nothing could be farther from the truth, WE,, WE, the USA, are REsponsible for the record breaking increase in poppy production in A/stan & WE, the USA, are profiting from that production, Not you & ME,, Ohh No,, not US, but just as the corrupt leaders of these tin horn tyrannies we send foreign aid to, the leaders of those countries benefit from the billions we send. OUr leaders & the corrupt globalists get some of the $$$ from these drugs. The ones we stomp on are the ones who dont want to play along. Just as the nations we invade are the ones where the leaders will not agree to borrow from the world bank & IMF. My world view is unpleasant, but far more accurate than the mamby pamby world the masses live in, Read the truth. Learn whats going on,, http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081 |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by RatdogWillie on 06/02/13 at 17:44:11 293630372A2D1C2C1C24363A71430 wrote:
Yep, the USA is helping with Afghanistan's Opium crops. The Taliban had all but eradicated the opium growers before the US invasion. So why is cheap Afghani heroin flooding into the United States? http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/dyinginafghanistan.php |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/02/13 at 17:59:22 Why that Eeeeevillll Taliban! Crushing opium production!!! OHHH the Noes! This is what got Pat Tillman murdered by our guys,, About 27,400 results (0.35 seconds) Search Results AP: New Details on Tillman's Death - Washington Post www.washingtonpost.com › Nation › Wires[ch8206] Jul 27, 2007 – SAN FRANCISCO -- Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried ... doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in ... The Assassination Of Pat Tillman - Rense rense.com/general77/assassination.htm[ch8206] Of Pat Tillman 8-5-7 ... They burned Corporal Tillman's uniform and his body armor. ... Medical examiners were very suspicious and suspected murder, but were ... New Evidence Clearly Indicates Pat Tillman Was Executed www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/270707tillmanexecuted.htm[ch8206] Jul 27, 2007 – New Evidence Clearly Indicates Pat Tillman Was Executed Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from ... Prison Planet.com » New Big Screen Documentary Exposes Pat ... www.prisonplanet.com/new-big-screen-documentary-exposes-pat-tillma...[ch8206] Jun 29, 2010 – “Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success ... The Conspiracy Zone : WHY WAS PAT TILLMAN REALLY KILLED? www.theconspiracyzone.org/posts/39815[ch8206] Sep 4, 2012 – Pat Tillman's father, a lawyer, while avoiding the legal term “murder” ... Medical examiners request a fratricide investigation sometime thereafter. Report: Army Medical Examiners Were Suspicious of Pat Tillman's ... www.foxnews.com › On Air Now › On Air Personalities[ch8206] Jul 26, 2007 – Report: Army Medical Examiners Were Suspicious of Pat Tillman's Death ... to Probe Military Over Family Notification of Killed Service Members ... RJ Eskow: Truth About Tillman ... Murder's Not 'Friendly Fire' www.huffingtonpost.com/rj.../truth-about-tillman-murde_b_58952.html[ch8206] Aug 2, 2007 – Pat Tillman was almost certainly murdered, and fratricide is not ... Medical examiners request a fratricide investigation sometime thereafter. Telling the Pat Tillman Story, One Piece at a Time - Huffington Post www.aolnews.com/.../reliving-the-pat-tillman-story-through-the-press/[ch8206] Aug 20, 2010 – Pat Tillman, the former pro football player, was killed by other .... Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head ... Who Killed Pat Tillman? by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com original.antiwar.com/justin/2007/07/30/who-killed-pat-tillman/[ch8206] Jul 31, 2007 – "Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success ... New Evidence Clearly Indicates Pat Tillman Was Executed - Infowars www.infowars.com/.../tillman_new_evidence_indicates_tillman_execute...[ch8206] Jul 27, 2007 – New Evidence Clearly Indicates Pat Tillman Was Executed Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from ... He had given up a career in pro football to "Serve his country" because he thot he should, as an American, go & fight against those who would attack us,, Then, he found out why we were there & started sending letters home, telling friends & family what he was seeing & how mad he was & telling them that when he came home, he was gonna blow the whistle,, They blew His whistle.. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Midnightrider on 06/02/13 at 19:21:02 I saw John Perkins interviewed on a television show. It was a real eye opener. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/02/13 at 20:24:35 6063132330273E510 wrote:
NO, travel is a RIGHT. The Supreme Court has said so. http://yhvh.name/MISSION_AID/RIGHT_TO_DRIVE_NO_LICENSE.pdf U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 1 1 U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public hi ghways and to transport his property thereon, by horse - drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile , is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions , travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct ." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 "The right of the Citizen to trav el upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business , is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. I t includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordi nary purpose of life and business ." - Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 "... the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference... is a fundamental constitutional right " - White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566 - 67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “ The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . . ” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872 , See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “ The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. ” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “ The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle . ” Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged i n suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAME NTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “ The right to make use of an automobil e as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the dr ivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle . ” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “ The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v P acholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “ The law does not denounce motor carriages , as such, on public ways. T hey have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to oc cupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile . Both have the right to use the easement. You people have been TOLD how to think,,, very few of my fellow Americans understand what a free person is. ” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Pine on 06/03/13 at 06:38:21 746B6D6A7770417141796B672C1E0 wrote:
NO, travel is a RIGHT. The Supreme Court has said so. http://yhvh.name/MISSION_AID/RIGHT_TO_DRIVE_NO_LICENSE.pdf . . . . . . . . You people have been TOLD how to think,,, very few of my fellow Americans understand what a free person is. ” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 [/quote] Agreed.... TRAVEL is a right... driving a car is a privilege. I can go anywhere I want on public roads. I do not have the RIGHT to drive there. I must satisfy local law for the procurement of the privilege. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 06/03/13 at 07:21:50 57737E74737D726E68737E7F681A0 wrote:
Once again - roads work, so ban any bloody thing you want in your town. It will show up there from the next town. Yea yea cops shoot someone ... wait, aren't these well trained in the use of guns and the best adjusted in the local populace. They shoot the wrong people, are we to believe the local redneck carrying enough weapons to bring down a small country is supposed to not shoot the wrong person ? Its a great argument to get guns away from cops as well. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 06/03/13 at 07:29:34 736C6A6D70774676467E6C602B190 wrote:
The war on drugs has reduced drugs on the streets, but its made drugs a bigger business. Essentially the prohibition giving birth to NASCAR type deal. It has increased crime (cos everyone involved in drugs is now a criminal) much like illegal immigration has increased crime. Yea prison busniess is making out like bandits. The private prison busniesses being paid by the govt per crimnial with a minimum guaranteed occupation etc etc, big $$$. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/03/13 at 08:25:32 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 1 1 U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Paraquat on 06/03/13 at 09:07:47 Try it. See how well it goes over. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/03/13 at 09:24:02 Mores the pity. They dont even follow the law, doesnt make ME wrong,, |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 06/03/13 at 10:44:48 2F2C5C6C7F68711E0 wrote:
That australian gun ban is a classic example of "criminals will never turn in their guns" Right, they wont ... We have a voluntary gun turn in drive. When they do that, you give those people a sticket to put on their door. And tell them they need to keep their gun. Then go door to door with a metal detector and confiscate everyone who does not ahve a sticker on their door. Registration of a gun is only to ensure that the gun that is in your name does not pass into a criminals hands without govt knowledge. Like if the gun is in your name, and it comes time for you to sell it, wont you make sure the new owners name is put in place of yours and you are truly free and clear of it. That will in itself prevent criminals from being able to get guns off un suspecting sellers. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 06/03/13 at 10:52:51 Another thing we need to do is to separate the intent of the law etc etc with corruption. A gun return drive is intended to get unused guns out of public hands for whatever reason. The fact that the yare selling guns out the back door of the police station like WD has said they do is low level corruption. When the city govt decides to sell them out the front door cos they are worth $$ is theft pure and simple not to mention betrayal. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Midnightrider on 06/03/13 at 20:39:32 "the local redneck carrying enough weapons to bring down a small country is supposed to not shoot the wrong person ? Its not the local redneck committing the mass murders, its the mentally ill. You could call me a local redneck, I drive a pickup, have a house full of guns but I never plan on shooting anyone unless they threaten me first. Most of the killing here in the south is minority drug related, not rednecks. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 06/04/13 at 06:56:41 486C616B6C626D71776C616077050 wrote:
I didn't specifically mean any one in particular. With all the training and the other criteria used to select cops if they make these mistakes (like shooting a neighbor when the alarm in a house goes off) then what is our option. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by 45acp on 06/04/13 at 08:23:03 [/quote] That australian gun ban is a classic example of "criminals will never turn in their guns" Right, they wont ... We have a voluntary gun turn in drive. When they do that, you give those people a sticket to put on their door. And tell them they need to keep their gun. Then go door to door with a metal detector and confiscate everyone who does not ahve a sticker on their door. Registration of a gun is only to ensure that the gun that is in your name does not pass into a criminals hands without govt knowledge. Like if the gun is in your name, and it comes time for you to sell it, wont you make sure the new owners name is put in place of yours and you are truly free and clear of it. That will in itself prevent criminals from being able to get guns off un suspecting sellers. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] so i turn in my guns and get them back with a sticker to put on my door. a sticker that will boldly tell all the criminals that i have guns inside. said criminals break into my home to steal my guns and i shoot them dead. then i have to go to prison for the rest of my life because the one i shot was a black teenager who was unarmed. sounds like a pharmacy i heard about. no thanks ill keep my unregistered guns and you can have the extra please come rob me sticker. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Midnightrider on 06/04/13 at 09:18:35 66677C7B74617D150 wrote:
I didn't specifically mean any one in particular. With all the training and the other criteria used to select cops if they make these mistakes (like shooting a neighbor when the alarm in a house goes off) then what is our option. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] Making sure he never wears a badge again. That wont bring the old man back to life but its all we can do. These new generation of cops are too aggressive, trigger finger happy and ask questions later. I think the government wants them that way. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by Paraquat on 06/04/13 at 09:21:12 2C2D36313E2B375F0 wrote:
http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/call-of-duty-statue-lapd.jpeg Los Angeles Police stormed video game company Robotoki headquarters Last Friday night in what turned into an armed standoff with a life-sized Call of Duty statue. After an unknown employee hit the ‘panic’ button within the office that immediately alerts police, LAPD entered the game developer’s studio around 7 PM and detained the studio head before centering in on the life-sized Call of Duty ‘Ghost’ statue. Based on a special forces character from the game, the statue can be seen above wearing military-grade equipment and wielding an AR-15. Visible from outside the offices, the police spotted the realistic statue from outside and assumed they were facing a hostage/terror situation. Studio head Robert Bowling told Polygon: “I was in my office when they arrived and saw them coming up our stairs, guns drawn… They yelled for me to put my hands up and walk towards them slowly, then took me into custody and out of the studio until they cleared the rest of the rooms and floors.” In turn, they entered the building armed with rifles and in anticipation of a potential fire fight. Less than a half hour into the standoff between the Ghost statue and police, they realized that they were in fact having an armed stand still with an inanimate object — a realization that came before they decided to blast the perceived intruder. As it turns out, the police really had no idea what they were truly responding to. And while it was originally reported that the panic button had been activated by a third party as a prank, or even an employee who thought that the statue was a terrorist, apparently someone simply hit it without truly knowing its purpose. http://www.storyleak.com/lapd-standoff-with-call-of-duty-video-game-statue/ These highly trained cops? Although, I will admit, the statue is very realistic. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 06/04/13 at 09:38:59 434C5A5A4C59404C5B4A4C290 wrote: That australian gun ban is a classic example of "criminals will never turn in their guns" Right, they wont ... We have a voluntary gun turn in drive. When they do that, you give those people a sticket to put on their door. And tell them they need to keep their gun. Then go door to door with a metal detector and confiscate everyone who does not ahve a sticker on their door. Registration of a gun is only to ensure that the gun that is in your name does not pass into a criminals hands without govt knowledge. Like if the gun is in your name, and it comes time for you to sell it, wont you make sure the new owners name is put in place of yours and you are truly free and clear of it. That will in itself prevent criminals from being able to get guns off un suspecting sellers. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] so i turn in my guns and get them back with a sticker to put on my door. a sticker that will boldly tell all the criminals that i have guns inside. said criminals break into my home to steal my guns and i shoot them dead. then i have to go to prison for the rest of my life because the one i shot was a black teenager who was unarmed. sounds like a pharmacy i heard about. no thanks ill keep my unregistered guns and you can have the extra please come rob me sticker. [/quote] No did you even read my post. Go back and read it. You're replying to the exact opposite of what I said. I've helped you out by bolding it. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 06/04/13 at 09:43:24 6756455646425643370 wrote:
You take any other 100 or how many ever people and make them respond to what happened here, and I'll guarantee you 99% of the time, the result will be the same, or worse. I dont think we can truly improve on a human police system. Yea yea we can get corruption etc etc out, but this was not a case where corruption was showcased. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Gun Owner Gets Fined $1000 Post by srinath on 06/04/13 at 09:50:25 65414C46414F405C5A414C4D5A280 wrote:
I didn't specifically mean any one in particular. With all the training and the other criteria used to select cops if they make these mistakes (like shooting a neighbor when the alarm in a house goes off) then what is our option. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] Making sure he never wears a badge again. That wont bring the old man back to life but its all we can do. These new generation of cops are too aggressive, trigger finger happy and ask questions later. I think the government wants them that way.[/quote] True, but you think it can be improved upon ? and how ? I believe that dropping in any other group of people will also result in the same outcome or worse 99% of the time, and that 1% is more luck than otherwise. I doubt "the govt" wants them any way other than to "observe and collect" ... The whole idea of cops is to collect revenue for their city. In a few towns around here they mainly patrol a few select intersections near where popular bars are, and they stop every car they can under some pretext. If they find a drunk, bingo, they got a big collection right there. Concord, pineville, etc are famous for that. If you want to live in a safe neighborhood - live near a bar. Cool. Srinath. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |