View Full Version : No on new gun Cintrols
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/137393-speaker-boehner-says-no-to-new-gun-controls
(wishing my fingers were smaller on the spelling)
Zundfolge
01-12-2011, 09:37
This is kind of a "well duh" moment.
Been kinda amused and annoyed at the same time by the reports of Glocks and extended magazines flying off the shelves in a buying panic.
Bailey Guns
01-12-2011, 09:55
I'm gonna order a new G19 today. But I'm gonna buy the model that comes with 10-round magazines. They're much safer.
BPTactical
01-12-2011, 10:06
Refreshing and encouraging to see a little of -here it comes- Common Sense in legislature.
What a concept albeit a foreign one.
Geology Rocks
01-12-2011, 10:07
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/137393-speaker-boehner-says-no-to-new-gun-controls
(wishing my fingers were smaller on the spelling)
not carrying a gun on school property has seemed to work, so i bet the 1000 foot rule will work for politicians too!
joe
Im sure a law about getting too close would surely make people think twice about commiting MURDER! I mean if this dude knew he would have gotten 300 hours of community service on top of the death penalty I bet he would of never done any of it! I mean the death penalty is one thing, but 300 hours of community service, or maybe probation on top of it is just inhumane!
commence face palming
*I made up the penalties for the presumed new crime, but I bet they're about right
The only new gun law I support is to not sell guns to people who look like they're thinking about eating a baby whenever they smile. Maybe something less offensively worded would do better.
Byte Stryke
01-12-2011, 11:01
I have a great Idea:
Instead of spending piles of money on more legislature that will only criminalize the average law abiding citizen, I propose fixing the system we have with said piles of money.
Let's fix the system that says if you are turned down from the military because you are a mental evaluation failure, you go on the no sale list.
If you are removed from college pending a Mental evaluation because they believe you are a risk to students, Get the Evaluation. Should you fail, you get on the no sale list.
I don't mean any little arbitrary little "I Feel sad today" sort of problem. I mean the sort of issues that would give cause to remove a citizen's civil rights for the safety of themselves and of society.
Make the list National.
Passing more legislation about make-believe lines and imaginary zones will do nothing against those with no regard for the laws. History has already proven this.
But I will be really upset if I am at the drive-through of a McDonald's getting my happy meal on and senator Whoever happens to be inside, giving me a felony firearms conviction with my fries.
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.)
"King said the legislation is not intended only for the safety of government officials but also to protect the public. He said elected officials are not necessarily more important than constituents, but by protecting them in this way, they would feel safer in meeting federal officials at public events."
just another show of the elected thinking they are the elites and laws shouldn't apply to them. Fuck King. next election I am sending money to whoever is against him.
Zundfolge
01-12-2011, 11:09
Here's a better idea; lets do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
The Arizona shooting is an anomaly, a freak occurrence that can not be predicted nor prevented ... its simply a "shit happens" thing.
I don't know if its part of human nature or something endemic to our culture but creation of massive changes in policy and new policies in response to anomalous events is just a massively stupid waste of resources (even worse than the proverbial "closing the barn door after the horses have escaped").
The analogy I've been using is this; If an asteroid fell from the sky and crushed a building downtown would it make sense to change the building codes requiring all buildings to be made asteroid proof?
"Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said the sometimes violence-laced remarks from Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and other political commentators should be toned down, but were likely not the impetus for the shooting spree."
just another way the liberals want to restrict eveyones freedom of speech if they don't agree with it. yet obama can say if they bring a gun, then we bring a gun. tough words from the man in charge of the country with the biggest no questions asked/he is the messiah following.
How do these idiots think we protect ourselves from our own .gov. they are already allowed to run a muck out there. this last election hopefully taught them a lesson. Enough of their bullshit. They are STEALING our rights.
Colorado Luckydog
01-12-2011, 11:14
Here's a better idea; lets do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
The Arizona shooting is an anomaly, a freak occurrence that can not be predicted nor prevented ... its simply a "shit happens" thing.
I don't know if its part of human nature or something endemic to our culture but creation of massive changes in policy and new policies in response to anomalous events is just a massively stupid waste of resources (even worse than the proverbial "closing the barn door after the horses have escaped").
The analogy I've been using is this; If an asteroid fell from the sky and crushed a building downtown would it make sense to change the building codes requiring all buildings to be made asteroid proof?
Well said. X2
Byte Stryke
01-12-2011, 11:19
Here's a better idea; lets do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
The Arizona shooting is an anomaly, a freak occurrence that can not be predicted nor prevented ... its simply a "shit happens" thing.
he had failed a psych eval for the military as well as been expelled from a university/school pending a psych eval.
I believe the proper course of action would be to fix the national list for fruitcakes and nut-jobs.
Lets face it, The army will take just about anyone, so there had to be a serious trigger in there for them to reject him on a psych. This isn't a "I feel a little sad today." kinda thing.
a College turned away money for the same.
We don't need more rules, I Agree.
We need to fix the rules and systems we have.
I for one agree that a new law making people with guns stay 1000 feet away from a government offical will save lives, just ask JFK how well that works.
dumb ass lawmakers.
Zundfolge
01-12-2011, 12:16
We don't need more rules, I Agree.
We need to fix the rules and systems we have.
And even then it wouldn't have stopped him.
Illegal guns are amazingly easy to buy on the black market ... and once you go to the black market a full auto is just as easy to get as a handgun (and you'd be surprised how cheap full auto is on the black market).
Or he could have made some pipe bombs in his garage, shown up with a sword and hacked away or just drove that POS Nova the press shows us in his driveway into the crowd.
My point is that there is ZERO way to prevent anomalous events from happening (especially at the hands of crazy people) Even throwing out the concept of a free society and living in a police state with tight gun controls you'll still have nutjobs killing people. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_school_attacks) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_State_Oil_Academy_shooting) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_August_Wagner) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_El%C3%ADas_Delgado) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_massacre) and ... well you get the idea.
I for one agree that a new law making people with guns stay 1000 feet away from a government offical will save lives, just ask JFK how well that works.
dumb ass lawmakers.
Well JFK was shot at 175 feet to 265 feet. Still, laws against shooting presidents (I assume that's illegal?) didn't stop Oswold (nor did laws against carrying concealed guns and shooting people at the police station stop Jack Ruby).
Still, as John Lott has pointed out on many occasions, "Gun Free Zones" actually ATTRACT killers because they know they're less likely to meet up with armed resistance.
Byte Stryke
01-12-2011, 12:19
And even then it wouldn't have stopped him.
Illegal guns are amazingly easy to buy on the black market ... and once you go to the black market a full auto is just as easy to get as a handgun (and you'd be surprised how cheap full auto is on the black market).
Or he could have made some pipe bombs in his garage, shown up with a sword and hacked away or just drove that POS Nova the press shows us in his driveway into the crowd.
My point is that there is ZERO way to prevent anomalous events from happening (especially at the hands of crazy people) Even throwing out the concept of a free society and living in a police state with tight gun controls you'll still have nutjobs killing people. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_school_attacks) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_State_Oil_Academy_shooting) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_August_Wagner) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_El%C3%ADas_Delgado) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_massacre) and ... well you get the idea.
I Agree with you.
there will always be nutjobs finding a way to impose their will on others.
my point was more towards fixing the system we have instead of adding more impotent legislation.
he had failed a psych eval for the military as well as been expelled from a university/school pending a psych eval.
I believe the proper course of action would be to fix the national list for fruitcakes and nut-jobs.
Lets face it, The army will take just about anyone, so there had to be a serious trigger in there for them to reject him on a psych. This isn't a "I feel a little sad today." kinda thing.
a College turned away money for the same.
We don't need more rules, I Agree.
We need to fix the rules and systems we have.
I agree. +1
And even then it wouldn't have stopped him.
Illegal guns are amazingly easy to buy on the black market ... and once you go to the black market a full auto is just as easy to get as a handgun (and you'd be surprised how cheap full auto is on the black market).
Yes they are easy to get, but some people if denied the ability to purchase one from a store like that, would not go out of their way to try to find someone to buy it off of. Even if they did, I hope a normal gun owner would be able to see how crazy they are and not sell to them. As far as the black market goes, I don't think that kid would have walked up to anyone who caters to the market to ask for a gun. Depending on the auto, between $450 and $800, just personal, and accidental experience (didn't buy).
Or he could have made some pipe bombs in his garage, shown up with a sword and hacked away or just drove that POS Nova the press shows us in his driveway into the crowd.
That is true. If he did that though, we wouldn't have this post would we? A crazy moron that no one wanted went and bought a gun and used it on people for no reason.
My point is that there is ZERO way to prevent anomalous events from happening (especially at the hands of crazy people) Even throwing out the concept of a free society and living in a police state with tight gun controls you'll still have nutjobs killing people. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_school_attacks) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_State_Oil_Academy_shooting) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_August_Wagner) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campo_El%C3%ADas_Delgado) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_massacre) and ... well you get the idea.
Like I stated in another thread, I know someone that if the thought were to enter into their head to go and buy a gun, (maybe it has already and I just don't know) they would end up using it on someone. Why? Because he is fucking nuts, but still able to go purchase a gun. Take away his right to do that, and he would not ever get his hands on one. Not one to follow anyone to the trunk of their car if you know what I mean. Banning certifiable people from owning will not keep all of them from getting guns illegaly, but it will stop some.
I will have to disagree with you on this one
BPTactical
01-12-2011, 12:51
Clarification- my comment as far as common sense in Legislature was restricted exclusively to the statement of :"No new Gun controls" and fixing the Mental health aspect.
Byte Stryke
01-12-2011, 12:56
Clarification- my comment as far as common sense in Legislature was restricted exclusively to the statement of :"No new Gun controls" and fixing the Mental health aspect.
+1
Nothing can be done that anyone is going to come to an agreement to, that is the shitty part about it all.
Zundfolge
01-12-2011, 13:17
I guess my concern about making it harder for "crazy people" to buy guns is that any system put in place that can catch 90% of the "crazy people" is going to end up trampling on the rights of a LOT of non-crazy folk (and still miss 10% of the genuine crazy).
I don't want to see oddness nor eccentricity outlawed (because that will eventually be twisted into simple non-conformity ... and conformity will be defined politically).
The other problem is allowing the government to define you as "too crazy to own a gun" without serious due process protections ... keep in mind that to many liberals and anti gun folk the very fact that you would WANT a gun is a sign that you're too crazy to be allowed to own one.
Liberty brings with it many risks. Mitigating those risks usually means giving up liberty (which ultimately leaves one no safer, just less free).
Byte Stryke
01-12-2011, 13:31
I guess my concern about making it harder for "crazy people" to buy guns is that any system put in place that can catch 90% of the "crazy people" is going to end up trampling on the rights of a LOT of non-crazy folk (and still miss 10% of the genuine crazy).
I don't want to see oddness nor eccentricity outlawed (because that will eventually be twisted into simple non-conformity ... and conformity will be defined politically).
The other problem is allowing the government to define you as "too crazy to own a gun" without serious due process protections ... keep in mind that to many liberals and anti gun folk the very fact that you would WANT a gun is a sign that you're too crazy to be allowed to own one.
Liberty brings with it many risks. Mitigating those risks usually means giving up liberty (which ultimately leaves one no safer, just less free).
see I believe you are assuming I am asking for the implementation of a NEW System.
This system is already in place but broken.
Have you ever been locked up in a nuthouse because you were crazier that a shit house rat?
[ ]Yes [ ]No
remember seeing something like that on a BCI?
This is what I am referring to. If you are under a psychologists care because you have strong impulses to go all Adam Glick or Jared Loughner then you don't need to be at Sportman's warehouse picking up anything more violent than a new fishing rod. Your name would be added to the list that its already supposed to be on as not eligible to purchase a firearm right beside the known convicted Felons.
I know that with all of the knee-jerk reactions you might think that I am asking for something new, more infringement, I am not. This is already in place, just broke as fuck. I think had it been functioning better, less people might have died.
I lost a job once for looking at gun forums just like this one at work. Someone had to lie to the company and say that they felt threatened in order to get it done. The entire thing was bullshit on a scale that you can not imagine. Good thing there aren't yet any dumb laws that could have scooped me into the "can't own a gun" category, just because my manager lied to get me fired because I wouldn't kiss her ass like everyone else.
See, that is just it though. There should be a law in place, or reformed to keep squirril shit nuts from owning guns. However if there was one in place that was actually being used, it would get out of hand and abused by all of the Washington dick heads.
I lost a job once for looking at gun forums just like this one at work. Someone had to lie to the company and say that they felt threatened in order to get it done. The entire thing was bullshit on a scale that you can not imagine. Good thing there aren't yet any dumb laws that could have scooped me into the "can't own a gun" category, just because my manager lied to get me fired because I wouldn't kiss her ass like everyone else.
That sucks man. I liked the last job I ran, all of the other Foremans and I got together and had a show & tell day, well more of a show day. Not much got done on the site that day. We all got together and brought in all of our guns, Even the GC participated. There had to have been 300 plus guns there that day. Too bad the site was in the middle of the town, would have been fun to been able to shoot em. We all (Foremans) pitched in and bought everyone pizza and Subway. It was a good work day.
just in case you didn't know...
a high capacity magazine turns a semi automatic firearm into a weapon of mass destruction.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/12/cook.ludwig.gun.control/index.html
ninth paragraph
Zundfolge
01-12-2011, 15:06
One of the big problems with laws that seek to keep guns out of the hands of those with "mental illness" is that "mental illness" is such a moving target.
Once upon a time homosexuality was listed in the DSM-III.
Considering the fact that what constitutes a "mental illness" can easily be defined politically, you can see the potential for abuse.
Whats to say that religious belief doesn't get reclassified as a mental illness (after-all you're believing in, talking to and listening to an "imaginary man in the sky" ... I guarantee you there are Atheists that would LOVE to put religion into the DSM)?
Whats to say that hunting doesn't get reclassified as a mental illness (cruelty to animals)?
Whats to say that being addicted to or a habitual abuser of caffeine doesn't get reclassified as a mental illness (substance abuse)?
No, I believe if we eliminated ALL gun laws (which I know isn't going to happen) we'd be no less safer than we are now as gun laws are a false sense of security (usually at the expense of liberty ... we all know what ole Ben Franklin had to say about that).
No, I believe if we eliminated ALL gun laws (which I know isn't going to happen) we'd be no less safer than we are now as gun laws are a false sense of security (usually at the expense of liberty ... we all know what ole Ben Franklin had to say about that).
I am gona have to disagree with you in a huge way with that last statement.
Zundfolge
01-12-2011, 15:18
I am gona have to disagree with you in a huge way with that last statement.
Thankfully we're still free to do so ... for now [ROFL1]
"Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said the sometimes violence-laced remarks from Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and other political commentators should be toned down, but were likely not the impetus for the shooting spree."
just another way the liberals want to restrict eveyones freedom of speech if they don't agree with it. yet obama can say if they bring a gun, then we bring a gun. tough words from the man in charge of the country with the biggest no questions asked/he is the messiah following.
How do these idiots think we protect ourselves from our own .gov. they are already allowed to run a muck out there. this last election hopefully taught them a lesson. Enough of their bullshit. They are STEALING our rights.
sniper7,- I believe Obama said: "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun"
"The hunters are those that do not directly threaten," said a forensic psychologist. "Real threats rarely give warning"
Mr. Loughner's friend said: "He was a nihilist and loves causing choas, and that is probably why he did the shooting, along with the fact he was sick in the head." He met Loughner sometimes to shot at cans for target practice.
"Mr. Loughner, even though mentally disturbed, chose his venue- a political gathering- and chose his victim, a Democratic congresswoman."
"Futhermore, he made these heinous choices in an atmosphere fired by hate speech, which was inescapably political."
We don't know whether the Tea Party or Sara Palin's targeting of Gabrielle Giffords using cross hairs played any explicit role in influencing Mr. Loughner's choice of victim.
Erno
Thankfully we're still free to do so ... for now [ROFL1]
+1 [ROFL1] [Beer]
Byte Stryke
01-12-2011, 16:23
One of the big problems with laws that seek to keep guns out of the hands of those with "mental illness" is that "mental illness" is such a moving target.
Once upon a time homosexuality was listed in the DSM-III.
Considering the fact that what constitutes a "mental illness" can easily be defined politically, you can see the potential for abuse.
Whats to say that religious belief doesn't get reclassified as a mental illness (after-all you're believing in, talking to and listening to an "imaginary man in the sky" ... I guarantee you there are Atheists that would LOVE to put religion into the DSM)?
Whats to say that hunting doesn't get reclassified as a mental illness (cruelty to animals)?
Generalizations aren't going to add any traction to that slippery slope you are on.
the laws are already in place. broken and neglected.
Ineligible Persons
The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
Fugitives from justice.
Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
Illegal aliens.
Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.
I feel that if we enforce the laws we have and fix the (albeit imperfect) system instead of passing more legislation that will only criminalize legal citizens, it will do more for the cause of gun ownership. passing more gun Bans, Barrel shroud bans and gun free zones will only create a false sense of security, that when broken, will incur more useless legislation and infringing on the rights of legal gun owners.
and by the way it takes a court procedure and a finding by a judge to be adjudicated as mentally defective or incompetent.
its not as easy as saying "Oh, he weirds me out."
clublights
01-12-2011, 16:25
the problem with " targeting mental illness" and " forcing evaluations to buy guns" and such nonsense is that a determined phycologist can decide that ANYONE OF US has a problem.
Also it will make people that really do need some help for " minor" issues shy away from help simply so their rights don't get trampled. ( IE a kid coming back from the sandbox has a minor to middle case of PTSD, not enough for anyone to really worry about but he needs a bit of help to get over watching his buddy get blown in half by an IED, now he gets " the label", or he tries to ignore it and it builds and gets worse causing massive problems in his life leading to major depression, the massive problems leading to more PTSD, so on and so forth. now this kid is a SERIOUS problem since it built up... all just to avoid the label he would now need, but if he had gotten the help early when he first got back he'd be just fine )
And you could replace the kid home from the sandbox with Firefighter, Cop, ER nurse/ Doc, EMT, a whole list of people who deal with traumatic situations on a regular basis.
As for the head shrinks deciding that you have a problem .. here is how easy it can get .....
Ever just have one of those days you didn't wanna get outta bed... just pull the covers back up and sleep the day away ?
Technically you were depressed.
Ever just wanted to punch someone in the face ?
Technically you now have violent fantasies.
You now have a history of being depressed with violent fantasies ... please hand over all of your guns.
It could be THAT easy. esp. since I have found most head shrinks to be liberals(talk about a screwed up agenda... he don't like guns so he could keep me or anyone else from owning them just by signing a piece of paper.)
Not directly related, but there was a study done where perfectly sane people were placed inside mental institutions as an experiment. They went to a shrink, said that they heard "voices" in their head. One voice said something like "Watch out!" and the other something like, "bonk" and that was it. The shrink would allow them to self commit and then they were instructed to just act normal. One person was stuck in the institution for several months and had to be literally rescued out of there. Just like a real life One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.
Very, very disturbing.
Byte Stryke
01-12-2011, 16:32
the problem with " targeting mental illness" and " forcing evaluations to buy guns" and such nonsense is that a determined phycologist can decide that ANYONE OF US has a problem.
Also it will make people that really do need some help for " minor" issues shy away from help simply so their rights don't get trampled. ( IE a kid coming back from the sandbox has a minor to middle case of PTSD, not enough for anyone to really worry about but he needs a bit of help to get over watching his buddy get blown in half by an IED, now he gets " the label", or he tries to ignore it and it builds and gets worse causing massive problems in his life leading to major depression, the massive problems leading to more PTSD, so on and so forth. now this kid is a SERIOUS problem since it built up... all just to avoid the label he would now need, but if he had gotten the help early when he first got back he'd be just fine )
And you could replace the kid home from the sandbox with Firefighter, Cop, ER nurse/ Doc, EMT, a whole list of people who deal with traumatic situations on a regular basis.
As for the head shrinks deciding that you have a problem .. here is how easy it can get .....
Ever just have one of those days you didn't wanna get outta bed... just pull the covers back up and sleep the day away ?
Technically you were depressed.
Ever just wanted to punch someone in the face ?
Technically you now have violent fantasies.
You now have a history of being depressed with violent fantasies ... please hand over all of your guns.
It could be THAT easy. esp. since I have found most head shrinks to be liberals(talk about a screwed up agenda... he don't like guns so he could keep me or anyone else from owning them just by signing a piece of paper.)
holy shit you are as bad as the fear mongering left
Do you have any inclination as to the process of having someone adjudicated mentally defective or incompetent?
You make it sound like any quack with a Panamanian degree in psychology can walk up and do this. its hard as SHIT.
I had to do it to someone, DA told me flat out it would be easier if we had let her kill someone.
It takes a ton of hearings, stacks of evidence, witnesses, a trial, Jury... whoa, wait, That's a TRIAL!
I think they call it... ohh DUE PROCESS MAYBE?
[Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang]
Byte Stryke
01-12-2011, 16:39
FYI
adjudication
The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. The entry of a decree by a court in respect to the parties in a case. It implies a hearing by a court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved. The equivalent of a determination. It indicates that the claims of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest.
Three types of disputes are resolved through adjudication: disputes between private parties, such as individuals or corporations; disputes between private parties and public officials; and disputes between public officials or public bodies. The requirements of full adjudication include notice to all interested parties (all parties with a legal interest in, or legal right affected by, the dispute) and an opportunity for all parties to present evidence and arguments. The adjudicative process is governed by formal rules of evidence and procedure. Its objective is to reach a reasonable settlement of the controversy at hand. A decision is rendered by an impartial, passive fact finder, usually a judge, jury, or administrative tribunal.
The adjudication of a controversy involves the performance of several tasks. The trier must establish the facts in controversy, and define and interpret the applicable law, or, if no relevant law exists, fashion a new law to apply to the situation. Complex evidentiary rules limit the presentation of proofs, and the Anglo-American tradition of Stare Decisis (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stare+Decisis), or following precedents, controls the outcome. However, the process of applying established rules of law is neither simple nor automatic. Judges have considerable latitude in interpreting the statutes or case law upon which they base their decisions.
An age-old question that still plagues legal theorists is whether judges "make" law when they adjudicate. Sir William Blackstone (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sir+William+Blackstone) believed that judges do nothing more than maintain and expound established law (Commentaries on the Laws of England); other writers vehemently disagree. Some legal analysts maintain that the law is whatever judges declare it to be. Echoing those sentiments, President Theodore Roosevelt (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Theodore+Roosevelt) asserted that "the chief lawmakers in our country may be, and often are, the judges, because they are the final seat of authority. Every time they interpret … they necessarily enact into law parts of a system of social philosophy; and as such interpretation is fundamental, they give direction to all law-making" (Message to Congress [Dec. 8, 1908]). Supreme Court Justice benjamin n. cardozo, writing in The Nature of the Judicial Process, argued that the law is evolutionary and that judges, by interpreting and applying it to specific sets of facts, actually fashion new laws.
Whether judges are seen as making law or merely following what came before, they are required to operate within narrow strictures. Even when they are deciding a case of first impression (a question that has not previously been adjudicated), they generally try to analogize to some existing precedent. Judges often consider customs of the community; political and social implications; customs of the trade, market, or profession; and history when applying the law. Some, such as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Oliver+Wendell+Holmes) and Justice Cardozo, thought that considerations of social and public policy are the most powerful forces behind judicial decisions.
A hearing in which the parties are given an opportunity to present their evidence and arguments is essential to an adjudication. Anglo-American law presumes that the parties to the dispute are in the best position to know the facts of their particular situations and develop their own proofs. If the hearing is before a court, formal rules of procedure and evidence govern; a hearing before an Administrative Agency (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Administrative+Agency) is generally less structured.
Following the hearing, the decision maker is expected to deliver a reasoned opinion. This opinion is the basis for review if the decision is appealed to a higher tribunal (a court of appeals). It also helps ensure that decisions are not reached arbitrarily. Finally, a well-reasoned opinion forces the judge to carefully think through his or her decision in order to be able to explain the process followed in reaching it.
Adjudication of a controversy generally ensures a fair and equitable outcome. Because courts are governed by evidentiary and procedural rules, as well as by stare decisis, the adjudicative process assures litigants of some degree of efficiency, uniformity, and predictability of result.
so yeah, having a bad day or daydreaming about doing bad things to your overbearing boss wont qualify.
have a nice day
:D
clublights
01-12-2011, 16:45
holy shit you are as bad as the fear mongering left
Do you have any inclination as to the process of having someone adjudicated mentally defective or incompetent?
You make it sound like any quack with a Panamanian degree in psychology can walk up and do this. its hard as SHIT.
I had to do it to someone, DA told me flat out it would be easier if we had let her kill someone.
It takes a ton of hearings, stacks of evidence, witnesses, a trial, Jury... whoa, wait, That's a TRIAL!
I think they call it... ohh DUE PROCESS MAYBE?
[Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang]
Yes byte .. it WILL start your way( since it is the way your saying NOW)............
It'll end mine.
Obviously the law is written as you stated before.
Well the anti's are gunna say " well that doesn't work, let's make NEW laws that make it easier to find "these people" "
It's won't happen overnight, but as more quacks either slip thru the cracks ( the Virginia Tech shooter) or simply get around the net ( the AZ shooter) the noose will tighten more and more till it really is as easy as I said.
Byte Stryke
01-12-2011, 16:49
Yes byte .. it WILL start your way( since it is the way your saying NOW)............
It'll end mine.
Obviously the law is written as you stated before.
Well the anti's are gunna say " well that doesn't work, let's make NEW laws that make it easier to find "these people" "
It's won't happen overnight, but as more quacks either slip thru the cracks ( the Virginia Tech shooter) or simply get around the net ( the AZ shooter) the noose will tighten more and more till it really is as easy as I said.
I Give up
you just want to panic and fight about something
http://communities.ptc.com/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadImage/38-1286-6322/tin+foil+hat+smiley.gif
Zundfolge
01-12-2011, 16:51
Byte has a point ... we already have mechanisms in place that simply aren't being used.
I'm not convinced that the current, unused system isn't ripe for abuse either and feel we'd be better off with less impediments to law abiding folk buying and carrying guns than we would be trying to keep guns out of the hands of "bad people" (and at the same time making it more difficult for the law abiding).
No law against guns for crazy people is going to stop a determined crazy person from getting a gun (likewise for criminals) and even on the off chance that the extra hoops one would have to jump through would keep a gun away from a nutter there's still a thousand other ways they can commit mass murder.
But back to Byte's point, the anti gun types acting like there is zero controls on nutters getting guns is obvious bovine scat.
clublights
01-12-2011, 17:10
I Give up
you just want to panic and fight about something
http://communities.ptc.com/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadImage/38-1286-6322/tin+foil+hat+smiley.gif
No you are incorrect dear sir.
I'm just saying that the mental health aspect needs to be ground treaded on very carefully. and the Anti's kept in check.
If not.. my scenarios may very well become the reality.......... sad to say :-/
In other news, the sky is falling.
"Futhermore, he made these heinous choices in an atmosphere fired by hate speech, which was inescapably political."
We don't know whether the Tea Party or Sara Palin's targeting of Gabrielle Giffords using cross hairs played any explicit role in influencing Mr. Loughner's choice of victim.
Erno
You know erno, you are just,, I just don't even have the words for it..
I realize in your state of Palin derangement syndrome that it may have slipped your notice, the the Judge the little dingbat actually did kill was fairly conservative, And, was challenging your lord and master on health care..
So, fitting my tinfoil properly, I'll just go with Maybe the ding bat was "trained" by the obammy hit squad to off the judge, thus getting him out of the way.
And the congress critter was just collateral damage..
Hey, sounds as good as any of the ones I'm hearing from your side about Palin...
You know erno, you are just,, I just don't even have the words for it..
I realize in your state of Palin derangement syndrome that it may have slipped your notice, the the Judge the little dingbat actually did kill was fairly conservative, And, was challenging your lord and master on health care..
So, fitting my tinfoil properly, I'll just go with Maybe the ding bat was "trained" by the obammy hit squad to off the judge, thus getting him out of the way.
And the congress critter was just collateral damage..
Hey, sounds as good as any of the ones I'm hearing from your side about Palin...
I think so as well. make it a personal hit called for by the dems on another dem. make it look bad, make the media turn against the tea party and palin.
Loughner was probably a raging libtard. he fit the bill. loner, pot-smoker, conspiracy theorist. he owned 1 gun. probably called magazines "clips" and probably asked the wal-mart guy for some "bullets" for his G-lock.
yep...definitely a liberal, who didn't know guns, was a space cadet, pissed about not getting in the military and he finally got fed up.
sniper7,- I believe Obama said: "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun"
"The hunters are those that do not directly threaten," said a forensic psychologist. "Real threats rarely give warning"
Mr. Loughner's friend said: "He was a nihilist and loves causing choas, and that is probably why he did the shooting, along with the fact he was sick in the head." He met Loughner sometimes to shot at cans for target practice.
"Mr. Loughner, even though mentally disturbed, chose his venue- a political gathering- and chose his victim, a Democratic congresswoman."
"Futhermore, he made these heinous choices in an atmosphere fired by hate speech, which was inescapably political."
We don't know whether the Tea Party or Sara Palin's targeting of Gabrielle Giffords using cross hairs played any explicit role in influencing Mr. Loughner's choice of victim.
Erno
yeah I meant to put knife, mis-wrote it on my phone apparently.
as to palin and the tea party, what a crock. loughner was probably obsessed with giffords, that is why he had a letter from years prior...also the time when the tea party was damn near unheard of.
In other news, the sky is falling.
Ya, I thought it was getting closer... Damn, I hate pressure.
I Give up
you just want to panic and fight about something
http://communities.ptc.com/servlet/JiveServlet/downloadImage/38-1286-6322/tin+foil+hat+smiley.gif
It's ok, ssshhhhhhh, you're ok, everything is fine now. [Beer] There will always be those people who argue, why? Who knows, maybe they couldn't read what you wrote correctly. I say we give my in-law a gun (unloaded, but neither will know) and put em in the same room together for a half hour and see how they feel when they get out. [ROFL1]
clublights
01-13-2011, 04:12
It's ok, ssshhhhhhh, you're ok, everything is fine now. [Beer] There will always be those people who argue, why? Who knows, maybe they couldn't read what you wrote correctly. I say we give my in-law a gun (unloaded, but neither will know) and put em in the same room together for a half hour and see how they feel when they get out. [ROFL1]
Ok so let me get this right ............
I say byte is correct. that he is right.
I say it COULD change. and I'm the asshole?
Uh.... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
yes it is an extreme view of what cold happen ............
So when those of us that say banning any " category" ( "assault weapons" .50cal, handguns so on and so on) is just a stepping stone to ban all guns. they are not assholes ...
But my idea that it could get that bad if the anti's are not kept in check makes me the asshole?
huh... go figure.
The first ammo man or woman Walmart clerk, declined to sell Loughner ammo, because he looked deranged. But at the second Walmart that he drove too, the ammo clerk, sold him the 9mm ammo.
Does anybody know what happened to that second ammo clerk, as him or her being treated by Walmart management?
My opinion, is that the ammo clerk, at least, is not selling ammo anymore.
I feel sorry for that person who sold the ammo to Loughner.
Did Loughner use FMJ or hollowpoints?
My guess, is that he used FMJ, because they were cheaper to buy.
The major problem with the anti-high capacity magazine gun nut's, is that they can't imagine a guy like me, is having alot of fun at the gun range using high-cap mags.
I live in Maryland, where the sale of over 20 round mags is banned; and I think that law is dispicable!!!
Ok so let me get this right ............
I say byte is correct. that he is right.
I say it COULD change. and I'm the asshole?
Uh.... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
yes it is an extreme view of what cold happen ............
So when those of us that say banning any " category" ( "assault weapons" .50cal, handguns so on and so on) is just a stepping stone to ban all guns. they are not assholes ...
But my idea that it could get that bad if the anti's are not kept in check makes me the asshole?
huh... go figure.
Again, you were apparently not reading what was written correctly. There are already laws set in place that could take care of what the arguement was about. You keep bringing up how new laws and regulations could get out of hand and the way it would be abused. Yes, we all know it can get way out of hand really fast. We all know that new laws and regulations would not be in anyones best interest. However, if they just pulled their heads out of their ass and enforced what is already in place, that would be good enough to keep guns out of certain peoples hands. Get it yet?
P.S. I didn't call you an ass hole. [Slap] However, the people trying to pass new shit, are ass holes.
Here's a better idea; lets do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
The Arizona shooting is an anomaly, a freak occurrence that can not be predicted nor prevented ... its simply a "shit happens" thing.
I don't know if its part of human nature or something endemic to our culture but creation of massive changes in policy and new policies in response to anomalous events is just a massively stupid waste of resources (even worse than the proverbial "closing the barn door after the horses have escaped").
The analogy I've been using is this; If an asteroid fell from the sky and crushed a building downtown would it make sense to change the building codes requiring all buildings to be made asteroid proof?
+1
More than 270 million American owned guns killed nobody today.
You are roughly 5 times as likely to be killed in a car accident as you are to be deliberately or accidentally shot and killed by someone else (43,214 vs. 7963 in 2009). Yet nobody is talking about outlawing cars. How about tobacco? The CDC says you are 50 times as likely to die from tobacco related illness as you are to be killed by another person with a gun. And nobody is talking about outlawing the tobacco industry. You know why? Tobacco and cars are revenue sources for the government and those in our government. Guns are a threat to their power. You do the math.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/images/emoticons//tinfoilhatsmile.gif
+1
More than 270 million American owned guns killed nobody today.
You are roughly 5 times as likely to be killed in a car accident as you are to be deliberately or accidentally shot and killed by someone else (43,214 vs. 7963 in 2009). Yet nobody is talking about outlawing cars. How about tobacco? The CDC says you are 50 times as likely to die from tobacco related illness as you are to be killed by another person with a gun. And nobody is talking about outlawing the tobacco industry. You know why? Tobacco and cars are revenue sources for the government and those in our government. Guns are a threat to their power. You do the math.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/images/emoticons//tinfoilhatsmile.gif
+10
clublights
01-13-2011, 16:23
Again, you were apparently not reading what was written correctly. There are already laws set in place that could take care of what the arguement was about. You keep bringing up how new laws and regulations could get out of hand and the way it would be abused. Yes, we all know it can get way out of hand really fast. We all know that new laws and regulations would not be in anyones best interest. However, if they just pulled their heads out of their ass and enforced what is already in place, that would be good enough to keep guns out of certain peoples hands. Get it yet?
P.S. I didn't call you an ass hole. [Slap] However, the people trying to pass new shit, are ass holes.
And when is the last time the Anti's did the smart thing?
We are talkin about people that have banned bayonet lugs... have you EVER EVER EVER heard of some one's murder being by bayonet?
Also the same folks that wanna ban barrel shrouds ...you know.. the shoulder thingie that goes up. Heat seeking bullets that are useless for hunting cuz they also cook the deer. ( my personal fav)
I think we can all agree that Loughner ( the AZ shooter) is nuttier then a fruitcake with peanut sprinkles.
The "problem" is that he never had any formal mental help. The Anti's are going to pray on that fact so they can widen the dragnet. it'll be a no good useless law. hell it won't even be a feel good law, just plain useless. but I bet they go for it.
There can be no law to catch the Loughners of the world. He is an anomaly. A "freak occurrence". the only chance in hell you have of catching the Loughners is to trample the hell over the rest of our rights.... but the Anti's have proved time and time agin they have no problem with that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.