I’ve never heard of the WorldNetDaily, and simply picked a link at random when I Googled. A more mainstream source: http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/
World Net Daily is so bad, the opinion column from a second-tier city paper that you linked is an upgrade.
Not an accurate summation of the article.
If we take the family at their word, the cops followed them for a good 10 minutes before pulling them over. Assuming we believe the family (and if we don’t believe them, why are we even having this discussion?) then it’s clear that the gun was not the reason the police were harassing the family. The gun license was just a convenient excuse for the cops to detain the family, a pretext for whatever they really wanted to harass the family about.
A flimsy, and possibly illegal, pretext, I’ll admit.
But the wife certainly didn’t help anything. From the last article you posted:
IANAL, but that sounds like probable cause to me.
Another reason not to talk to cops at all. I’m sure the wife was trying to allay the cops concerns or something, but look what happens. People get nervous, they blabber, cops have fun.
Yeah, that full quote kinda blows it for the gun holder–it seems like if I were a cop, I’d be looking for an excuse to do a domestic violence investigation if someone sounded that scared.
Drunk driving was the example. It happens a lot. We don’t normally impute intent and charge people with second degree murder for vehicular homicide.
OK, I get it, you want to revamp the centuries old standards for criminal liability. You effectively getting rid of unintentional homicide because you don’t really see what distinguishes someone who intentionally kills someone and someone who improperly stores their gun or drives drunk. Gotcha. :rolleyes:
Exactly, and the penalties for these sort of actions are already in place despite all the outrage we see from the hoplophobes over deaths that involve guns.
Thats an interesting opinion. The already have a system in place to deal with those situations but you want to make special rules for guns. Gotcha. :rolleyes:
Hoplophobia is an irrational fear of guns. In what way goes the second amendment exhibit a fear of guns. When I say special treatment, I am not talking about favorable treatment, wasn’t that obvious to you? 
IIRC, I agreed that they don’t get enough range time but your complaint was that they were not sufficiently trained in WHEN to use a firearm not target practice.
proficiency with those firearms.
Our military doesn’t even engage in that sort of training.
Your analogy was that you haven’t killed people in error so you must be better trained. That was a stupid statement. And how many practice sessions do you think brain surgeons have before they perform surgery on a live patient?
[quote=“Zeriel, post:3757, topic:648729”]
By the way, congrats on your addition to the Ted Nugent list for that ridiculous hoplophobia crack, Damuri.
Sorry if the truth hurts.
Thats because you seem to have an irrational fear of guns despite your self declared pro-gun stance.
Unless you have a cite from Kos or the Lawrence O’Donnell show, it doesn’t really count you know.
Really? So they follow a car long enough to find out that the owner of the vehicle owns and carries a gun and pull him over and detain him to ask him about his gun and you think it was about something other than his gun?
You need probable cause to stop the vehicle to begin with. I didn’t see any reason why they got pulled over to begin with. Do you?
Huh?!?
This is all you need to know.
So someone who owns several firearms and practices with them regularly has an “irrational fear of guns”.
This is apparently because I believe that someone who wants to own a deadly device ought to be pretty damn responsible before they cowboy around with it and pretend they’re helping somehow.
If you weren’t so goddamn blinkered, you’d basically realize that the reason most “gun grabbers” exist at all is because so much of gun culture boils down to “don’t make me learn how to use this object, you communist!”
Oh, and THIS idiocy:
Right. I want to make “special rules” for guns that acknowledge what they are and the risks vs. rewards involved. What would it be like if we DIDN’T make special rules for distinct classes of objects, you moron? Uh-oh, we can’t insist you fence off your swimming pool, because that’s a “special rule for swimming pools”. Better make you fence off all garden planters, grills, and other backyard objects, too. Hey, while we’re at it, you idiot, I want MORE special rules for guns that expand the special rules inherent in the second amendment. Because guns ARE a special case–they’re the most potentially (if not statistically) effective means of personal defense extant, as recognized by the fact they’re especially protected under the Constitution.
That argument is so stupid I have to come back some more.
I’m amazed you manage to feed yourself successfully: since “special rules” are apparently bad, how are you to distinguish between milk and drano? We already have a system in place to deal with liquids!
If only they had a means at hand to resist that act of tyranny by the government’s jackbooted henchmen, as free men should …
Ahright already! Even nuts can say the sky is blue.
If you ever get pulled over by the police, and the officer in question has had a fight with his wife, or his hemorrhoids are bothering him, or he just in general feels you’ve failed the attitude test, just tell him “I pay your salary!”. The result will probably get uploaded to YouTube, and I’d love to see it.
Isn’t it amazing that when a cop does something to piss off a gun owner, they need to be fitted for jack-boots toot-sweet, but if that same cop retires, then get’s pissed of at a texter in a movie theater and shoots him in the chest, we have to take into account that he was a cop and this is just so not like him so there must be some explanation for his actions beyond the jack-boots.
Its an enigma, for sure.
It appears you missed the intent of the rhetorical question. Since your claim was on a quantitative issue, and my question addressed the quantitative matter, your “I have no idea … some” seems misplaced. This makes one think you click-click-click on the thread, never pondering, just responding arbitrarily. Is it a compulsion? Do you have nothing better to do with your time?
Given that you missed the rhetorical intent of my question and didn’t know the answer to the literal question why did you respond at all?
You liberal gun grabbers keep helping to make the gunners’ case. Wouldn’t that 4-year old have thought twice if he’d known his 4-year old cousin was also packing? (And what kind of liberal parents sent that cousin out into the cruel world unarmed, anyway?)
You’re also complaining about the cop using deadly force against someone texting during the theater’s commercials. :smack: If you gun grabbers had your way, no one in the theater would have been able to stop the offender; he might have continued texting into the main feature.
It’s funny how the NRA will promulgate the jackbooted thug image, yet in my neck of the woods it seems every sheriff out there is uploading YouTube videos about how they’ll not only refuse to enforce any gun control laws, but they’re prepared to join the loony armed resistance. Which is it, I wonder?
One for the SRIOTD and this thread: Oregon GOP group defends gun raffle to honor Lincoln and MLK with inept slavery analogy
First there was the raffle itself. Because what better way to honor two men famously assassinated with guns than to raffle off a gun? I mean, we honor Christ with crosses, right?
And then there was the apology for the raffle:
Well, that makes it all better.
So to be clear: your opinion is that the police selected a random out-of-state vehicle, followed for 10 minutes just to wait to background check the driver on the off chance he had a gun license?
Do you think he was the first car they followed that night? Or do you think they followed three or four other cars and before they “got lucky” and finally found a gun-owner to harass? (That’s charitably assuming you thought as all before you posted).
The police harassment was clearly unjustified. But the story of harassment because of gun ownership doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Listen you half a retard, your habit of reinventing the context is making you look almost as stupid as Elvis (Elvis is like the absolute zero of stupid so its really hard to actually get there, you can really only approach it). I never said we shouldn’t have special rules for guns. If you had been paying any attention at all, you would know that I support licensing and registration of guns. We do that for a very small subset of things.
I was saying (and anyone with half a brain would have realized it) that we shouldn’t start making up new criminal rules for guns. We already have rules in place for unintentional homicide or negligent homicide. You do realize we were talking about new rules for criminal liability right?
When you looked stupid for pushing for murder one, you shut up for a while and now you are pushing for murder two. I explain why murder two is also pretty stupid considering the hierarchy of criminal liability so you double down and effectively want to merge murder 3 into murder 2. And not because you think we should subject gun owners to more rules but because you think that we should subject gun owners to more liability than the centuries old rules governing unintentional murder would allow.
I guess I should have said, I have no idea and neither do you. Or did you have a cite?