Where is our BASEBALL BAT CONTROL, and WHY DIDN'T THESE PEOPLE GET SAVED BY THE POLICE?!
By
peacefuljeffrey, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
mcrocker 0
Quote
QuoteThat doesn't mean that there can't be a registration/licensing process involved with your right. You have the RIGHT to vote but you still need to register before you do.
Registering them is one step from taking them.
So we are all one step away from losing the right to vote? Is that just the aluminum foil hat wearing side of you talking? I don't believe in right or left wing conspiracy theories so I don't believe that registering is one step away from confiscation.
QuoteAnd if you can't prove a benefit, I don't see the point in creating more laws when we already have plenty...We just need to enforce them a lot more.
Agreed, but that is gun control, it already exists and you are happy with enforcing it, so you support gun control?
QuoteYou have to trust in the system. Your rights are safe, the system guarantees it.
Quote
The system does NOT guarantee it...It helps stop it...But if you get enough liberal judges....Well anything can happen.
Um, Judges can't change the constitution. Judges interpret the law, they do not create it.
Jimbo 0
QuoteAgreed, but that is gun control, it already exists and you are happy with enforcing it, so you support gun control?
No it's not. Gun control has no impact on the life of a criminal. Get it? What Ron is referring to is the laws we have to punish those who commit violent crimes, and crimes committed with guns. If we would take the time to actually enforce the laws we have we wouldn't half the problems we do today.
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
JohnRich 4
QuoteI pay $35/year to register my car. Not a HUGE source of income for the state. The garage makes most of it. They also run it through a pretty extensive safetly check list. Sure it generates revenue for the state, but it DOES increase safety.
No, it does not increase the safety of vehicles on the road. Those that won't pass inspection, are being driven anyway, either without inspection stickers, or with fake/stolen stickers.
You are making the usual false assumption about laws - that everyone actually obeys them. The problem is, those who can't pass a vehicle inspection, just don't bother, or find a way around it. In my younger days, I would trade tires with a friend, to get through the inspection, then switch back afterwards, putting my old bald tires back on my car. I did that because I didn't have the money for new tires at the time my inspection came due. Did the inspection make my car safer? Nope.
In Florida, they did away with the state inspection system - threw the whole darned thing out - about 20 years ago. Because they did a study and found that it was just a huge, costly bureacracy, and it really didn't improve safety.
Car registration is nothing more than another tax. In fact, I make out my registration check to "Tax Assessor" each year. (See the attached image.)
JohnRich 4
Quoteyour right is protected by the Constitution. They can't come conficate your firearms, it is unconsititutional. Any law that allows them to do that would be overruled by the supreme court.
If only it were so black and white. But your statement is way too naive and ignores political realities. There have been numerous erosions and infringements upon Constitutional rights. And the courts don't overturn them. Furthermore, there are plenty of politicians who don't even acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment is about the right of individuals to own guns. Thus, your faith in the Constitution to save them, is worthless. You'll have to fight the naysayers if you want to keep them - that's the political reality.
mcrocker 0
QuoteYou are making the usual false assumption about laws - that everyone actually obeys them.
You are making the usual false assumption about laws - That nobody actually obeys them.
It does help increase safety. People that obey the law get their cars fixed. It doesn't correct ALL problems but it does help increases safety. Once again, the 'if it doesn't fix the ENTIRE problem it is a bad thing' mentality doesn't apply in most cases.
Not everyone obeys the law, not everyone breaks them either.
QuoteIt does help increase safety. People that obey the law get their cars fixed. It doesn't correct ALL problems but it does help increases safety. Once again, the 'if it doesn't fix the ENTIRE problem it is a bad thing' mentality doesn't apply in most cases.
Bad analogy. If you are driving your car illegally without registering it, chances are pretty damn good you're not going to get a safety inspection done (in fact in PA you can't).
If you're someone who robs liquor stores, chances are you're not going to register your illegal firearms.
Jimbo 0
QuoteIt does help increase safety. People that obey the law get their cars fixed.
Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law. All the laws in world won't get a criminal to fix his car. We don't need more laws to tell the law abiding citizen to fix his car, because he's a law abiding citizen we don't have to worry about him. Is it sinking in yet?
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
QuoteQuoteWhile America has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)
I'm not going to bother comming in on the argument, but felt it nessasery to point out to any who bothered reading the above text that it is entirely incorrect. Whoever wrote that needs to be banned from ever writing again - it's an appaling miss-truth to the point that I simply have to conclude that they are deliberate outright lies.
I confess I scan read the text for comments on the UK... I don't think I'll bother reading the rest of it as I have absolutly no confidence that the author can actually write a truthful word.
David Kopel enjoys a very good reputation, and so your claim that he is lying doesn't go very far with me, given the fact that you do not refute him, you just contradict him. Could you post anything factual that demonstrates what IS true about the topics he mentioned?
It's not hard for me to believe what he wrote above, given the climate of people volunteering up their rights to privacy in the U.K. for the sake of illusory government "protection." (Cameras on every streetcorner a la 1984... You did know, did you not, that Orwell was warning against that kind of thing, not suggesting it??) and Tony "Never-met-an-infringement-on-rights-he-didn't-like" Blair has advocated for stripping away the right to remain silent! Those silly little things like human rights keep getting in the way of prosecutions!
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Kennedy 0
QuoteNope, wrong sorry your right is protected by the Constitution. They can't come conficate your firearms, it is unconsititutional. Any law that allows them to do that would be overruled by the supreme court. You can't just trust the 2nd ammendment, you have to trust the ENTIRE constitution. You can't just use one part of it in your argument. Your rights are safe, Now, what is the problem again?
Nope, wrong, sorry, it's happened in New York City and in California. My rights are safe only as long as I and other fight to keep them.
I believe wholeheartedly in the constitution. Try getting our elected officials to do the same.
QuoteAgain, do to the Constitution your guns will NEVER be taken away. You may have to register them. You may have to wait a couple of days before you pick one up. We all stand a better chance of losing our ability to drive (it isn't a right afforded by the constitution) than we have of losing our right to bear arms. We won't be losing either.
You really need to wake up and realize that many politicians are actively trying to negate the second amendment, through activist judges, "reinterpretting" the second amendment, and just outright ignoring it.
QuoteDo you honestly feel that there is a great government consipracy brewing and you'll have black helecopters flying over with ATF agents repelling down?
You left out the FBI armored vehicles and snipers.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
QuoteCan you still go buy firearms? Yes? Your rights are still intact. That will never change, it is IN the constitution and will require another ammendment to change that.
Would you care to comment on the places in the United States where you CANNOT still go buy a firearm?
You know, places like Washington D.C., New York City, Chicago...
You might claim that you could get a permit in those places and then be allowed to buy a firearm -- the only problem is, the police just don't give out the permits. (Unless, of course, you are rich, famous, politically connected, or some combination thereof.) The permit systems there are completely at police discretion. That means they don't have to give out permits if they don't want to, and since their philosophies in those sociofascist cities are that ordinary people cannot be trusted with guns, they don't allow them to have guns.
Your claim is negated by the FACT that there are places in the U.S. where you are, effectively, legally banned from owning guns.
QuoteThat will NEVER happen, it will never pass congress. Your rights to bear arms will always be protected. That doesn't mean that there can't be a registration/licensing process involved with your right. You have the RIGHT to vote but you still need to register before you do.
What would you say of the people in New York City, who, after owning guns legally for years, were asked to register them, and then several years after they registered them, anti-gun-laws were passed, and the police, using the registration lists to track down the people who had guns, went to their addresses and confiscated the guns?
Would you say that all just happened in a dream? That they imagined it all?
I mean, where the fuck are you coming from, making these assertions that REAL WORLD FACTS completely controvert?!
QuoteYou missed my point entirely. The effect of gun control on reducing crime can NEVER be proven. You can't count how many crimes never happened. So, just because it cannot be proven it therefore must be a bad idea? I don't agree with your logic, sorry.
What would be wrong with looking for a DROP in the number of crimes that DO happen in places where gun control was instituted? You don't have to be able to count the crimes that didn't happen; you could just look for a decline in the actual incidence of crime. The only problem is, you DON'T find that in places where gun control is instituted.
Dude, you are so wrong on so many counts, I can't figure out why you persist in your arguments. It is clear that you don't know what you're talking about, and are just spouting off and pontificating in the blind.
QuoteLet me know when you have a better solution... In fact, better yet, write your congressman so they can try to pass it into law. In the mean time, any law that is passed that violates the 2nd ammendment will be nullified by the Supreme Court. That is the beauty of our system of government. You have to trust in the system. Your rights are safe, the system guarantees it. Now lets try to figure out something that works.
You mean the same Supreme Court that Democrats claim threw the presidency to G.W. Bush? Since they refute the legitimacy of the USSC decision that ended up leaving Bush with the victory in the election, they are claiming that the Supreme Court cannot be counted on to do objective right. What makes you think that a biased Supreme Court would find correctly in favor of gun rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment?
QuoteThe 'gun control violates my rights' statement is false because it doesn't, it CAN'T. With that out of the way, why else do you oppose gun control?
Because no one, anywhere, can show evidence or proof that good people giving up THEIR guns has any effect on the degree to which BAD people remain armed. Why on EARTH would you think that GOOD people either registering their guns or giving them up would curtail crime?? It's not the good people who would register or give up guns who are committing the crime!
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Kennedy 0
QuoteBad analogy. If you are driving your car illegally without registering it, chances are pretty damn good you're not going to get a safety inspection done (in fact in PA you can't).
If you're someone who robs liquor stores, chances are you're not going to register your illegal firearms.
Not only that, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is unconstitutional to require a felon to register his firearms, and to impose a penalty if he does not. That nasty little bit about self incrimination led the Justices to conclude that Registration, legally, can only affect law abiding citizens. So who out there is still keen on registration reducing crime? Anyone? Beuller...Beuller...
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
QuoteQuote
All the reason we need to say that infringing on our rights is not justified since it can't deliver safety (and even if it could deliver safety, the price is still too high. You NEVER give up rights for a promise of safety. Better to live without safety than without rights.)
Dude you don´t really believe what you are saying, just want to prove a point .If you really think that you should never give up your rights for a promise of safety, you should REALLY be against GWB and his Patriot act.
That the government is able to held you captive without informing you of the reason takes away more rights than that you have to do more paperwork to get a gun.
Being more consistent with your ideas will help proving your points across the board.
Who are you to tell me whether I believe what I'm saying or not? You're in effect calling me a LIAR.
I can't believe that YOU believe what YOU say. I think you're full of shit when you talk about the "benefits" of gun control. You come across like you understand NOTHING about the effects of guns and gun control.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteQuote
QuoteThat doesn't mean that there can't be a registration/licensing process involved with your right. You have the RIGHT to vote but you still need to register before you do.
Registering them is one step from taking them.
So we are all one step away from losing the right to vote? Is that just the aluminum foil hat wearing side of you talking? I don't believe in right or left wing conspiracy theories so I don't believe that registering is one step away from confiscation.
Technically, we are always just one election away from never having our votes counted again. All it takes to lose the right to vote is for the government, already entrenched in power and with a willing military/police force that receives benefits and power from that government, deciding that it is not going to hold elections. You think there are not places where this happens? There is no guarantee, ever, that elections will ever be held again. You wait and see if it comes to pass when you wake up on election day. What would you do if you woke up on election day and went to your polling station and found no one there to record your vote?
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"What would you do if you woke up on election day and went to your polling station and found no one there to record your vote? "
Call the UN.
Call the UN.
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
mr2mk1g 10
Quoteyour claim that he is lying doesn't go very far with me... Could you post anything factual that demonstrates what IS true about the topics he mentioned?
When Kelland makes a statement about Physics people shut up and listen. Why when I make a point about UK law do people still try to question me? Damnit what does it take to get some respect around here?
OK, you want back up for my assertion that the author is either so piss stupid he shouldn't be allowed a pen for fear that he might eat it; or that he is simply outright lying? Here you go!
Let’s take just one of his points as an example shall we? Just to see the facts behind the points your respected author makes. Let’s pick one at random… let’s see… why not his point that the police are allowed to [I]“keep defence lawyers away from suspects under interrogation”
Section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 confers upon suspects an undeniable right to legal advice. The section goes on to allow delay in two specific circumstances. Firstly where the exercise of that right will result in other suspects being alerted to the police’s activity. And secondly where it will result in the loss of stolen property.
The case of [I]R v. Samuel [1988] 2 WLR 920[/I] went on to consider this section. It was held that the wording of this section permitted delay in access to one’s own solicitor where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that that specific solicitor [I]will[/I] interfere with justice. Note that it says [I]will[/I] not [I]might[/I]. This is specifically aimed at situations where it is thought that a specific family solicitor will alert other members of a crime syndicate to the detainee’s arrest. Think of the Godfather trilogy – you think the family lawyer in those films could be trusted? That happens in real life too.
The key point about this case though, is that whilst the police can delay access a [I]specific[/I] solicitor, they can’t prevent you from seeing [I]another[/I] solicitor. In fact what the police will do in this situation is simply call the duty solicitor. The logic being that the suspect is highly unlikely to have a pre existing arrangement with this random solicitor that simply happens to be on duty that day. As such there is no risk that they are going to be able to use them to interfere with the administration of justice. If there is no risk that contact with this legal adviser will lead to interference in the administration of justice then there is no power to delay access.
What happens if the police do deny access to legal advice when they shouldn’t? In [I]R v. Vernon [1988] Crim LR 445[/I] the suspect was refused her usual solicitor as it was late at night. The police didn’t mention the fact that she had a right to see a duty solicitor free of charge. Note that they didn’t even actively deny her access to another one, they simply forgot to mention that she had a [I]right[/I] to see one. The result was that all evidence they collected in her subsequent interview was inadmissible and her conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal.
Now police know better. Now they know that if the suspect does not have their rights fully explained to them and signs a form stating specifically that they do not want legal advice, no evidence is going to be admissible at court and they won’t get their man. It’s in the police’s best interests to make sure they see a solicitor see. In fact in police stations round here when a suspects doesn’t want legal advice they record the conversation between the officer and the suspect where their rights are explained to them and the suspect reiterates that they don’t want a solicitor. That way there’s no way the suspect can later claim they were denied their right.
But what if they’re terrorists you say – surely they have fewer rights given to them by the country that sustained 75 years of IRA bombings? After all the US in it’s great wisdom has seen fit to take away all the rights of those nasty people interned at Gitmo! Nope – let’s look at the cases of [I]Murray v UKApplication No. 18731/91, 22 EHRR 29 (1996)[/I] and [I]Magee v UK Application No. 28135/95, [2000] Crim LR 681[/I]. Both of these are cases of people being detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Both of them involved restriction of the right to see a lawyer for the first few hours. Guess what… both of them involved the illegal restriction of that right. It was held that it is illegal under our law to restrict that right [I]even when[/I] we are dealing with terrorists.
So your respected author has done one of two things. Perhaps he simply read the cold text of s58 of PACE without looking into the case law that interpreted it – understandable you may think – who knows to look at the cases also, doesn’t the Government make the law?. Sorry – I think that’s stupid beyond belief, everyone who knows anything of UK law knows that acts are always interpreted by case law, that’s why it’s known as a “Common Law System”. If he doesn’t now that quite frankly he’s not sufficiently qualified to comment on our law.
Alternatively perhaps he does know to check the case law, and has looked at the cases. Perhaps he isn’t quite as stupid as I initially thought. In this instance though he has chosen not to relate the outcome of those cases to his readers and has instead chosen to mislead them. In that case he is entirely misrepresenting the situation. One might say he was lying.
Which do you think it is Jeffery? Is your respected author a liar or is he stupid? I can see no other explanation. What he said is not simply one interpretation of the law – it’s the opposite of what exists.
Would you like me to look at any of his other points? I can - they’re all equally stupid. But please forgive me if I leave it till later this evening, I’ve wasted enough time today on this post already.
QuoteWho are you to tell me whether I believe what I'm saying or not?
Botellines, nice to met you.
Quote
You're in effect calling me a LIAR.
No, I am not. That would be a personal attack and as you should know it is not allowed.
I am just saying that in some threads you prefer safety over freedom and in other threads you prefer freedom over safety. However you say: You NEVER give up rights for a promise of safety. Better to live without safety than without rights
What is the right word?, ummm, let me think.... yeah, it is FLIP FLOP
QuoteI can't believe that YOU believe what YOU say.
Well, I can´t believe that you can´t believe that I believe what i say.
Quote
I think you're full of shit when you talk about the "benefits" of gun control. You come across like you understand NOTHING about the effects of guns and gun control.
Although you think that you know everything and that you are always right (and i am sorry for being so brutally honest), the fact is that you are often wrong. There is a lot of people in this forum that make points about diferent subjects without being so agressive. (No, i am not one of them).
Particularly regarding gun control. No side has ever been able to prove anything, so, please do enlighten us and tell us why you think you are beyong any doubt right.
HINT: read the whole thread firsts and specially mcrocket posts.
Ron 10
QuoteIn Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That doesn't mean that there can't be a registration/licensing process involved with your right. You have the RIGHT to vote but you still need to register before you do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registering them is one step from taking them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we are all one step away from losing the right to vote? Is that just the aluminum foil hat wearing side of you talking? I don't believe in right or left wing conspiracy theories so I don't believe that registering is one step away from confiscation
Ask people in New York, England and Austrailia what happend after they registered their weapons.
Do some homework.
QuoteIn Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you can't prove a benefit, I don't see the point in creating more laws when we already have plenty...We just need to enforce them a lot more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, but that is gun control, it already exists and you are happy with enforcing it, so you support gun control?
No I DO agree with 18 to buy a long gun, and 21 to buy a pistol.
But what I am talking about is actually USING the punishments we have in place for violent crime.
Use a gun in a crime, and the law should crush you.
QuoteIn Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to trust in the system. Your rights are safe, the system guarantees it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The system does NOT guarantee it...It helps stop it...But if you get enough liberal judges....Well anything can happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, Judges can't change the constitution. Judges interpret the law, they do not create it.
You were saying that we will never loose our rights due to the Constituition right?
What about this?:
Quote
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amend1.htm#18
XVIII - Liquor Prohibition
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919.
Altered by Amendment XXI
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
It was repealed two years later...But the fact it WAS repealed shows that the Second Amendment COULD be.
Like I said read up....And then speak.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
QuoteWhen Kelland makes a statement about Physics people shut up and listen. Why when I make a point about UK law do people still try to question me? Damnit what does it take to get some respect around here?
Spell Kallends name right?
OK mr Lawyer...Please tell us the story about the process of gun laws in Engalnd...From how it started to the limit of them.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
mr2mk1g 10
QuoteSpell Kallends name right?
Fair catch
England (we can all play spelling games).QuotePlease tell us the story about the process of gun laws in…
To be honest I'd rather not. It's not my speciality and I don't have the time to put in the research needed to come out with a definitive answer. Perhaps one day I shall do so, either way I’d rather not put something out there that was inaccurate or ill researched.
To be frank I don’t really have the inclination to join in with this row either. As indicated in my first post here, I’d rather not enter into the same argument yet again.
In all honesty I’ve not even read any of the posts on the argument, just those in reply to my own. My comments here are simply bourn out of the fact that I am disgusted that the quoted author had published something that contained such astounding inaccuracies.
Jeffery called me on the point.
edited to add - I don't even particularly know what the argument's about. I presume guns again given the title... but then I've already made it clear to all here that I'm not anti-gun and that I'm a gun owner myself who enjoys shooting. Thus my input here is probably not necessary.
For some reason, because I live in England people always assume that I want them all banned.
Dude you don´t really believe what you are saying, just want to prove a point .If you really think that you should never give up your rights for a promise of safety, you should REALLY be against GWB and his Patriot act.
That the government is able to held you captive without informing you of the reason takes away more rights than that you have to do more paperwork to get a gun.
Being more consistent with your ideas will help proving your points across the board.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites