View Full Version : Legal Actions Become Illegal If People Say They Are Alarmed
Crazed Rabbit
07-18-2007, 03:48
Well, the lousy gun control bliss-a-ninnies will be happy; they've managed to convince some people that any carrying of a weapon is criminal. And now, we have situations where it is completely legal to carry a gun around - except where if someone calls police and says they feel threatened.
The fellow carrying the gun can have it slung over his shoulder, not point it at anyone, just be walking down the road minding his own business. But all it takes is one moron to call the police and say they alarmed, and suddenly a legal act becomes illegal - because of how another person - completely unaffected by the act - feels about that act. They just say the person is 'disturbing the peace'. Heaven forbid, then, that you do anything unusual that could disturb someone.
This doesn't just affect gun rights - think of how certain speech could be labeled hate speech and be made illegal if it offended someone in some way.
http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/base/news/118466401148560.xml&coll=3&thispage=1
Mobile police said they plan to arrest a man today who scared people Friday evening as he walked through a Spring Hill neighborhood with a loaded, semiautomatic AK-47-style rifle.
Officers confiscated the rifle Friday but could not take the man into custody until they had a warrant signed by both a magistrate and the man who made the complaint, Mobile police spokesman Officer Eric Gallichant said.
Gallichant said that on Monday, a magistrate signed a warrant for a charge of disorderly conduct, and officers expected to obtain the signature of one of the witnesses today. Once that is done, the man will be arrested, he said.
Gallichant said, however, that he would not release the man's name Monday because officers had not yet obtained the second signature needed to activate the warrant.
While it is not illegal to carry an assault rifle, it is against the law to use the gun to alarm people, Gallichant said.
"I think it is important that people understand that although he may not be specifically charged with carrying a weapon out in the open like that, just the act of doing so can cause public alarm, which is covered by disorderly conduct," Gallichant said.
Of course, he wasn't using the gun to alarm people. Pointing at people or threatening them would be one thing, but now you can break the law without doing anything wrong because other people don't like it.
CR
But all it takes is one moron to call the police and say they alarmed, and suddenly a legal act becomes illegal - because of how another person - completely unaffected by the act - feels about that act.
You're stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. We have to eliminate every risk, even imaginary ones. Especially imaginary ones. That gun might inspire terror. Get it? Terror? Yeah, that's right, terrorist.
Number one:Why was he carrying around an AK-47 in the first place? What is the point? And at night no less.
While it is not illegal to carry an assault rifle, it is against the law to use the gun to alarm people, Gallichant said.
That's funny. Carrying around an assualt rifle in plain sight is going to alarm most people.
Privateerkev
07-18-2007, 04:47
Hell, I'm alarmed after hearing that story and I don't even live around there.
Crazed Rabbit
07-18-2007, 04:56
Number one:Why was he carrying around an AK-47 in the first place? What is the point?
When must people explain to the government why they choose to exercise a right?
Did you miss the part that said it was legal?
Carrying around an assualt rifle in plain sight is going to alarm most people.
So what? Some people are alarmed by religion, or signs saying speak in English. Should an idiot's feelings make me a criminal?
Crazed Rabbit
Gregoshi
07-18-2007, 05:11
More information regarding the circumstances would be nice, but I have to wonder at the necessity of walking down a neighborhood street with a loaded AK-47. From a safety aspect, why would such a gun have to be loaded?
The premise that people being "alarmed" makes something illegal, is ridiculous. However, we are asked by the government to be "vigilant" against terrorism, so someone toting an assault rifle is going to attract some extra attention. Gun owners should expect this an be prepared to deal with it. Heck, even I have to pause and give thought to what I'm photographing in this post-9/11 world...I could be a terrorist taking photos to scout out security of a government building, you know. Post-9/11 fallout can be a real pain in the butt.
CR, you make a good point, but, on the surface, this particular story is not the best example to support it.
Privateerkev
07-18-2007, 05:15
The premise that people being "alarmed" makes something illegal, is ridiculous. However, we are asked by the government to be "vigilant" against terrorism, so someone toting an assault rifle is going to attract some extra attention. Gun owners should expect this an be prepared to deal with it. Heck, even I have to pause and give thought to what I'm photographing in this post-9/11 world...I could be a terrorist taking photos to scout out security of a government building, you know. Post-9/11 fallout can be a real pain in the butt.
I know what you mean. I'm a rail-fan and the government takes a slightly different view of men standing by train tracks with cameras these days...
When must people explain to the government why they choose to exercise a right?
Did you miss the part that said it was legal?
So what? Some people are alarmed by religion, or signs saying speak in English. Should an idiot's feelings make me a criminal?
Crazed Rabbit
He didn't have to explain it to anyone, until his actions alarmed another person, which made his action illegal. I never questioned whether it was legal or not, but what the point of his actions were. To me it seems pretty senseless to carry around AK-47 in plain sight or at all for that matter.
Yeah CR I haven't heard of anyone being killed from speaking English lately, have you? Speaking English=not life threatening, gunshot wounds hmm yeah I think it's safe to say they're life threatening.
So seriously what was the point? Or was there not one. I guess I'll never know.
Strike For The South
07-18-2007, 05:37
There is no need for a man to carry a semi auto rifle in plain sight on a street. This isnt Somila its America. This guy is a grade A idoit
Crazed Rabbit
07-18-2007, 05:47
However, we are asked by the government to be "vigilant" against terrorism, so someone toting an assault rifle is going to attract some extra attention.
I could completely understand a cop coming up and talking to him - but arresting him for a legal act is not simply 'extra attention'.
He didn't have to explain it to anyone, until his actions alarmed another person, which made his action illegal.
Um...no. Did you again miss the bit about his walking down the street with the rifle being legal?
You're missing the big picture: the government has made legal actions illegal because of how another feels about those actions.
gunshot wounds hmm yeah I think it's safe to say they're life threatening.
Gee, did he even point the gun at anyone? No.
It seems like no one has respect for Jefferson's advice anymore.
EDIT: Strike - since when has need ever had to do with rights?
CR
Strike For The South
07-18-2007, 05:52
Oh Em Gee. CR carrying a loaded semi auto rifle in the street is idociy. He is lucky he didnt get shot himslef. Im just as scared of hippies and minorites as the next man but when the goverment decides to go crazy its not going to just happen. You aernt going to leave for work one day and think "Thank God I brought the kalashnikov with me today or that goverment coup would've snuck up me". COMMON SENSE FOR GODS sake
Gregoshi
07-18-2007, 06:05
I could completely understand a cop coming up and talking to him - but arresting him for a legal act is not simply 'extra attention'.
Perhaps I should have put a little more emphasis on it, but I am agreeing with you CR. Extra attention - yes. Arrest - no...at least not based on the information in the article. Smart thing to do - definitely not.
Um...no. Did you again miss the bit about his walking down the street with the rifle being legal?
No CR, did you miss the part where it said you can't use the gun to alarm people? And from the article it doesn't say what the man was doing other than walking. Though I can think of few things he could have done with that loaded AK-47, which aren't legal.
You're missing the big picture: the government has made legal actions illegal because of how another feels about those actions.
Uh sure CR it's a horrible horrible injustice. It should be changed to "until they start shooting into the air and at other people" It's a precaution to protect the people.
Gee, did he even point the gun at anyone? No.
It seems like no one has respect for Jefferson's advice anymore.
CR
Edited out. But still he had no point of walking down the street with a loaded AK-47. I would rather have a man going to jail because of how someone "feels" rather than reading a news report that says x number of people killed today because a gun wielding idiot went crazy with his AK-47 and started shooting innocent people.
Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I don't see walking around with a LOADED AK-47 to be a rational act.
Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I don't see walking around with a LOADED AK-47 to be a rational act.
I'm going to have to agree with you. I'm surprised there isn't a law against this already.
But, remember guys, we all have to watch for those every day threats that an AK-47 is needed for ;).
seireikhaan
07-18-2007, 08:01
There is no need for a man to carry a semi auto rifle in plain sight on a street. This isnt Somila its America. This guy is a grade A idoit
I agree 100% with Strike here. CR, I do get your point on the issue, and I would usually side with you on a similar issue. I don't think the guy should be convicted of anything, other than being an idiot. I just don't see why a person, in America, should be carrying around an AK for. I mean really, what is a person going to do with a loaded AK in suburban neigborhood? He sure ain't hunting with it. I mean, what is the point of carrying the thing around when all an average person needs for self defence is a concealed handgun. Toting a loaded assault rifle around is asking for it, if you ask me.
So what if the mafia wants some money from you and because you don't pay decide to just walk around in front of you house with loaded weapons on their backs? Or if you find the mafia too unrealistic, how about the crazy ex of your girlfriend? Should the police wait until he shot you on your front lawn when you tried to go to the supermarket? Well, the only reason they have to arrest him before that would be, well, that you feel threatened by him. :inquisitive:
And think about the fact that two Texans are opposing you the most. ~;)
Why would you want to carry a gun with you if you can't even use it anyway?
That's like bringing some drugs with you all the time but not selling or using it. That's Illegal, right?
Also even if you feel more secured by carrying a gun, at least don't show it. But if you have one and show it to everyone and play with it a bit, most people and me included would get the picture you'd plan on using it. Also a gun is a gun but AK-47 that's not just a gun. Hell if someone's walking around with a machinegun it definately looks more that that person is planning on killing persons. Also AK-47's get associated to terrorists, even the biggest fool knows that. So either that guy was a complete retard or he wanted to get others feeling alarmed.
In a sense the law is stupid however, without this law I could walk around with a gun and point it at persons and scare the **** out of them without doing something illegal. Cause as long as I don't shoot anyone...
I still don't understand why persons should be carrying guns in public in the first place. Oh well, I never will. And I'd like to keep it that way too. ~D
Spetulhu
07-18-2007, 09:27
"Gallichant said that on Monday, a magistrate signed a warrant for a charge of disorderly conduct, and officers expected to obtain the signature of one of the witnesses today. Once that is done, the man will be arrested, he said."
Disorderly conduct? That's not quite the same as "carrying guns is illegal even when legal", is it? Walking around the neighborhood with a loaded rifle might not be illegal but you do disturb the peace. Same as your vaunted Free Speech, it too can be used to disturb the peace even if you have the full right to say what you want. Misdemeanor, punishment fines or community service.
certainly walking around in the middle of a neighborhood with a loaded assault weapon is an intimidation move...
not surprised it is illegal...
this guy has to be some kind of loony.....
The fellow carrying the gun can have it slung over his shoulder, not point it at anyone, just be walking down the road minding his own business.
Someone walking down the road of my neighbourhood with a loaded AK-47 is definitely not minding his own business. He's a nutbar and a threat to public safety. It's also legal to bring all your guns out on to your front lawn and clean them while the elementary school across the street is having recess, but that is also a really bad idea, and I'd expect the cops to be at that person's doorstep in seconds.
But all it takes is one moron to call the police and say they alarmed, and suddenly a legal act becomes illegal - because of how another person - completely unaffected by the act - feels about that act.
CR
That moron would be me. I'd dial 911 so fast m fingers would be a blur.
Just because something is legal does not necessarily mean it's a good idea - just as something being illegal does not necessarily mean it's bad. (I have to go to work in twenty minutes. That's legal and it's also a really bad idea.)
This is not a gun control issue. This is a common sense issue. I've owned dozens of rifles and handguns and never did it occur to me that walking down the street with my Galil over my shoulder was either a good idea, legal, or an exercise in personal liberties. It would be insanity.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-18-2007, 12:17
An assault rifle, or even a semi-auto of that nature is an offensive weapon, the fact that carrying such in an urban area is legal to begin with is questionable, it's not a hunting weapon.
That fact that it was loaded? Well that should qualify him for prison on the grounds that he is a danger to those around him.
Adrian II
07-18-2007, 13:32
Ahoy, you lads 'ave no idear what makes me hearty tick. Like e'ery old sea dog, the Rabbit be married t'his gun!
:hijacked:
Don Corleone
07-18-2007, 13:33
I think CR's point is the legality of the matter. He's making a stand on principle. In principle, I have to agree with him.
But I technically have the legal right to crap in my pants in public, right? Does anybody think that's a good idea? Does anybody really think the police wouldn't be giving me the hairy eyeball, walking around the mall with a load in my pants?
Seriously, if you don't want the government to have to legislate a mandate for common sense, then we're all going to have to exercise some on our own and not stretch the boundaries of what's technically allowable. Brandishing a firearm is a crime in most states, and for a good reason. It ratchets up everyone's tension and threat level, especially as Lemur pointed out, in the post-911 world. If some guy was pacing up and down my street with an assault rifle strapped to his back, damn skippy I'd call the cops (after I loaded a few rounds into my own home defense plan).
I don't get it. Why do you equate the right of free speech and the right to own and carry a lethal weapon? Words can't kill anyone, guns can. What's the point of even owning an AK47 in the first place? For protection? That's going over the top, a handgun is enough, and easier to wield. For hunting? Unless you're hunting for people... Free speech is universal and cannot be banned (as long as your constitution still stands), different opinions can make you uncomfortable, but they can't hurt you. Where I'm from, you need a special licence from the police to own a handgun, since it is the Ministry of Internal Affairs alone that can review one's legal and medical history should that person ask for it. And large weapons such as the Avtomat Kalashnikov are out of the question, why would anyone need them anyway, never mind showing them off in public.
If it's legal to own a gun, that doesn't mean it's legal to threaten people with it. Real life isn't GTA, y'now?
Don Corleone
07-18-2007, 14:31
I don't get it. Why do you equate the right of free speech and the right to own and carry a lethal weapon? Words can't kill anyone, guns can. What's the point of even owning an AK47 in the first place? For protection? That's going over the top, a handgun is enough, and easier to wield. For hunting? Unless you're hunting for people... Free speech is universal and cannot be banned (as long as your constitution still stands), different opinions can make you uncomfortable, but they can't hurt you. Where I'm from, you need a special licence from the police to own a handgun, since it is the Ministry of Internal Affairs alone that can review one's legal and medical history should that person ask for it. And large weapons such as the Avtomat Kalashnikov are out of the question, why would anyone need them anyway, never mind showing them off in public.
If it's legal to own a gun, that doesn't mean it's legal to threaten people with it. Real life isn't GTA, y'now?
The reason the right to free speech and the right to bear arms are compared so frequently is that they come from the same place. Theoretically, if the Bill of Rights is a 'living breathing document' that needs to be changed on the fly to account for modern weaponry, then it's just as easily alterable at a whim to account for modern communication. Call it a 'slippery slope' argument, but one with a lot of merit.
When you come right down to it, forget the 2nd ammendment for a second, all the original 'rights' conferred in the original Bill of Rights have been watered down and/or corrupted to a point that they no longer serve their intended purpose. You CAN be searched at a whim. You CAN be forced to house/support occupying troops. Our army DOES get called out to clean up civil disturbances.
HoreTore
07-18-2007, 14:44
So.... In the US, some people willing to defend me if I walk around with an automatic 7.62 rifle with the intent of going on a killing spree - as long I was stopped by the police before I fired a shot?
Interesting....
Don Corleone
07-18-2007, 14:47
So.... In the US, some people willing to defend me if I walk around with an automatic 7.62 rifle with the intent of going on a killing spree - as long I was stopped by the police before I fired a shot?
Interesting....
It's this qualifying line that changes the entire reaction, Hore Tore. What if it was...
So.... In the US, some people willing to defend me if I walk around with an automatic 7.62 rifle with the intent of going on a killing spree target shooting - as long I was stopped by the police before I fired a shot?
Interesting....
I'm playing devil's advocate, by the way. I've already agreed with you in practice on this particular issue. I just don't think it's proof positive that gun ownership rights need to be discontinued, which appears to be where you're headed.
Lord Winter
07-18-2007, 15:02
I don't get it. Why do you equate the right of free speech and the right to own and carry a lethal weapon? Words can't kill anyone, guns can. What's the point of even owning an AK47 in the first place? For protection? That's going over the top, a handgun is enough, and easier to wield. For hunting? Unless you're hunting for people... Free speech is universal and cannot be banned (as long as your constitution still stands), different opinions can make you uncomfortable, but they can't hurt you. Where I'm from, you need a special licence from the police to own a handgun, since it is the Ministry of Internal Affairs alone that can review one's legal and medical history should that person ask for it. And large weapons such as the Avtomat Kalashnikov are out of the question, why would anyone need them anyway, never mind showing them off in public.
If it's legal to own a gun, that doesn't mean it's legal to threaten people with it. Real life isn't GTA, y'now?
The idea of the second admendment, with the founders being the extremely parinoid people that they were, was to stop the government from trying to remove opposition from being armed thus leaving the said opposition open to a greater degree of control. In short it serves as the final and most terriable check on our government and gurrentees the right to rebellion in event that the social contract is broken.
HoreTore
07-18-2007, 15:12
It's this qualifying line that changes the entire reaction, Hore Tore. What if it was...
I'm playing devil's advocate, by the way. I've already agreed with you in practice on this particular issue. I just don't think it's proof positive that gun ownership rights need to be discontinued, which appears to be where you're headed.
Well, I said I was going to a target shooting, but in reality, my targets were humans at a mall. However, nobody knows this but me.
You'll still support me?
But I technically have the legal right to crap in my pants in public, right? Does anybody think that's a good idea? Does anybody really think the police wouldn't be giving me the hairy eyeball, walking around the mall with a load in my pants?
Loaded Pants sounds like a good movie title if you ask me.:laugh4:
The reason the right to free speech and the right to bear arms are compared so frequently is that they come from the same place.
The founding fathers did not invent free speech.
To say that the 2nd ammendment is there to protect opposition to the government sounds like an excuse. The US government and presidents have been lying to you guys for ages now, REBEL ALREADY! How does walking around with a loaded AK47 in a suburban area constitute as exercising one's right to rebel against a repressive government?
You don't need guns to overthrow a dictator. The only ones with guns on the streets of Belgrade on the 5th October 2000 were the Milošević faithful among the police.
AntiochusIII
07-18-2007, 15:55
WarHeart88: I think Don Corleone means it differently. Namely, that both the Right to Free Speech and the Right to Bear Arms (the latter asserted in an incredibly pathetically vague statement :dizzy2: ) in the USA comes from the same legal justification: the Bill of Rights, or the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution.
From that viewpoint his point is firm in principle. Sure for the modern Western world everyone with half a brain (excluding social conservatives, but since when did they ever have brains?) think that Freedom of Speech is a fundamental, inalienable right or at least it should be. But from a legal standpoint that's where the rights come from in the USA, and I think I can safely assert that governments like to take away rights whenever they could so a clear, inalienable legal standpoint is required to protect such rights from incursions.
That it's already failed countless time is another topic :clown: *mumbles something about the Patriot Act and Neocon scumbags*
The whole "we need guns to fight the dictatorial government" is just propaganda/excuse BS. It was true back when "the government" was the British Empire trying to subdue the American rebels in the hills of Massachusetts; it's not true in the era of F-117's, Reality TV's, and crowd control weapons.
I was never enamoured with guns (then again I was never enamoured with cars, so my hippie credentials is probably stronger than half of liberal America at least) and can't see why anyone would think it's cool to walk around with loaded Kalashnikovs in public. Gun Control Ninny I am? Well, if that's what it takes to not have loonies walk around with frickin' loaded Kalashnikovs in public.
I know how he meant it, that's just my point. The right to free speech is universal wherever you go, whenever you live. The loosely defined right to bear arms was written down 200+ years ago so that an invading or colonial force would not be allowed to take the land.
And you're right, it is a pathetic excuse for gun-lovers; when you go to a protest, you don't bring an Avtomat Kalashnikov along with you...
Don't you think that all this controversy regarding guns "masks" (to an extent) problems regarding freedom of speech? If someone attends a presidential speech carrying symbols of support (badges and whatnot, it might as well be a gun) they're welcome, but if they're disagreeing they can be removed even though they're not threatening anyone? How many people have been dubbed as "anti-American" because they don't agree with the war?
AntiochusIII
07-18-2007, 16:22
I know how he meant it, that's just my point. The right to free speech is universal wherever you go, whenever you live. The loosely defined right to bear arms was written down 200+ years ago so that an invading or colonial force would not be allowed to take the land.While the original intent no longer holds any practical value, I still think Don Corleone's point stands -- in fact I agree with him -- that we probably don't need a reevaluation of the practicality of the provisions within the Bill of Rights right now, or even ever. I might be a little scared of guns always but I'm sure it's a small sacrifice on my part for others to have their fun in the shooting ranges and the hunting fields...or even self-defense. Mostly.
Obviously loaded Kalashnikovs in public is waaaaay overboard. Nobody needs that stuff for hunting or self-defense.
A debate on practicality will eventually leads to bad conclusions. Pragmatism has never been known for its ability to accommodate inalienable human rights...
It's quite funny since the same Bill of Rights has in fact changed in practice a lot since those days anyway. The essentially irrelevant 3rd Amendment has been morphed into a "Right to Privacy," not that I mind, of course; I'm certainly more concerned about my privacy than "soldiers quartering in my home."
Don't you think that all this controversy regarding guns "masks" (to an extent) problems regarding freedom of speech? If someone attends a presidential speech carrying symbols of support (badges and whatnot, it might as well be a gun) they're welcome, but if they're disagreeing they can be removed even though they're not threatening anyone? How many people have been dubbed as "anti-American" because they don't agree with the war?To be fair, such limits on Freedom of Speech go for both sides of the political spectrum and is in fact widespread in most Western countries. Do I agree with you that sucks and the governments really need to stop ruining my soapbox? Hell yes. Protecting public peace and order my ass, it's just a political favor for the political elite.
Big King Sanctaphrax
07-18-2007, 16:53
This seems fine to me, except for the part about whether it disturbed the peace or not being decided by whether somebody was 'alarmed'. However, I suspect that the US police must have an objective standard about what constitutes a breach of the peace, and that it was the fact that he broke this, rather than the fact that someone complained, that resulted in his arrest.
If this fellow had had the nouse to put his gun in a case, I imagine no-one would have bothered him.
Don Corleone
07-18-2007, 17:10
This seems fine to me, except for the part about whether it disturbed the peace or not being decided by whether somebody was 'alarmed'. However, I suspect that the US police must have an objective standard about what constitutes a breach of the peace, and that it was the fact that he broke this, rather than the fact he was carrying a weapon round, that resulted in his arrest.
If this fellow had had the nouse to put his gun in a case, I imagine no-one would have bothered him.
Actually, Disturbing the Peace is notoriously subjective, to the point that the term is a euphemism for "the cops don't like you". The police would tell you anybody, on any given day, could be arrested at least 5 times and convicted twice for breach of peace. Including the President. It has almost no burden of proof. Disturbing the peace is whatever the peace officer says it is, and judges have consistently upheld this viewpoint.
Big King Sanctaphrax
07-18-2007, 17:31
Really? Oh. Well, that is troublesome.
Perhaps I'm just being naive.
Edit-Hmm, I checked to see how it worked in the UK, and apparently Breach of the Peace isn't actually a crime here-it's a "legal oddity created by Royal perogative". You can't be punished for it, it's a just a way of removing someone from a location: however, a magistrate can have you "bound over" to keep the peace in future-and if you breach it again, you can be imprisoned. It also doesn't give you a criminal record, as it's not a criminal offence.
Learn something new every day.
While the original intent no longer holds any practical value, I still think Don Corleone's point stands -- in fact I agree with him
Sorry, I was vague. I agree with you and Don Corleone. I just have a problem with people equating free speech and guns just because the Bill of Rights happens to mention them both.
Actually, Disturbing the Peace is notoriously subjective, to the point that the term is a euphemism for "the cops don't like you". The police would tell you anybody, on any given day, could be arrested at least 5 times and convicted twice for breach of peace. Including the President. It has almost no burden of proof. Disturbing the peace is whatever the peace officer says it is, and judges have consistently upheld this viewpoint.
I thought that 'breach of public peace' or something like that should depend on those around the "perpetrator" who report him, not on the officer who actually arrests him. Like the guy with the AK47: he wasn't bothering the cops who arrested him, but the people around him.
Don Corleone
07-18-2007, 18:47
Sorry, I was vague. I agree with you and Don Corleone. I just have a problem with people equating free speech and guns just because the Bill of Rights happens to mention them both.
I thought that 'breach of public peace' or something like that should depend on those around the "perpetrator" who report him, not on the officer who actually arrests him. Like the guy with the AK47: he wasn't bothering the cops who arrested him, but the people around him.
So all it takes is one phone call to my local police department and I can get my neighbor arrested? Wow, you must be a lawyer, trying to generate business....
I'm not equating the two rights. I'm equating how the came to be guaranteed within the framework of US Law. Despite what you might happen to think, there is nothing inherent or universal about free speech. Go to Myanamar and say you think the government is a bit excessive and repressive. Then we'll talk about how universal free speech is.
The idea of universal free speech is widely held, sure. But the reality is that it doesn't become palpable until it is enacted into law within the framework of a particular country's legal system. In the US, that means the Constitution. The Constitution is not inalterable. It wasn't intended to be. But the framers DID want to make certain that a change was carefully considered and had broad popular support before being enacted. It wasn't until Roe v. Wade that this treasonous attitude of "The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says" came about. Prior to that, sure there were plenty of violations, but they were recognized as such. The governement couldn't just come out and declare that "white is black" by fiat. Now they can, and do. The right to property begins and ends where the businesses who bribe your city government choose to say it is (see Kelo v. New London).
There we go. A Dim Sum cart full of Don Corleone's outrage over the abuse of the Constitution. Where's the John Birch society when you need 'em. :clown:
So all it takes is one phone call to my local police department and I can get my neighbor arrested? Wow, you must be a lawyer, trying to generate business....
I'm not equating the two rights. I'm equating how the came to be guaranteed within the framework of US Law. Despite what you might happen to think, there is nothing inherent or universal about free speech. Go to Myanamar and say you think the government is a bit excessive and repressive. Then we'll talk about how universal free speech is.
I never said you equated them as rights. And your neighbor has to actually disturb you and others somehow (REALLY loud music, etc.), otherwise you'll be arrested for making a prank call.
And free speech should be universal. Just because it's like that in Myanmar doesn't mean it should be like that in the US or any other country. In my country, just 10 or so years ago, people died for free speech. Killed by guns that some of the people on this thread apparently love so much. So excuse me for believing that guns and freedom of speech should never go hand in hand. They can't go hand in hand. Regardless of what a 200+ year old document says.
Don Corleone
07-18-2007, 19:22
I never said you equated them as rights. And your neighbor has to actually disturb you and others somehow (REALLY loud music, etc.), otherwise you'll be arrested for making a prank call.
And free speech should be universal. Just because it's like that in Myanmar doesn't mean it should be like that in the US or any other country. In my country, just 10 or so years ago, people died for free speech. Killed by guns that some of the people on this thread apparently love so much. So excuse me for believing that guns and freedom of speech should never go hand in hand. They can't go hand in hand. Regardless of what a 200+ year old document says.
I see. So at the end of the day, your argument is "I'm right because I know I am"?
I see. So at the end of the day, your argument is "I'm right because I know I am"?
I never said that. That's what I believe in. Got a problem with that? What's your point?
Don Corleone
07-18-2007, 19:42
I never said that. Hence why I asked, not stated. No, you did not use that particular phrase, but you have failed to offer any justification for your views and your absolute conviction that you're 100% correct. You've also failed to answer those that disagree with you, myself espeically on any substantive grounds. You simply keep saying "that's not how it should be" "or this is how it should be". It would be nice if you could offer some objective criteria for the rest of us to consider.
That's what I believe in. Got a problem with that? Not at all. If your point is "I believe in it just because I do", that's fine and its certainly your right. But let's identify that as your reasoning. Claiming that there's some universal authority or assumption of rights is dangerous, because it ignores the need to be vigilant for one's rights. I don't have free speech because it's a universal fact. I have free speech (or the limited form of it I enjoy) because of the laws within my country that recognize it.
Got a problem with that? What's your point? I'm not intending to provoke you, but you appear to be getting agitated. Perhaps we can resume this discussion when you've calmed down?
I'm not agitated a bit (sorry if I gave off such an impression). The thing is, I remeber those words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." I didn't think I needed to EXPLAIN why freedom of speech should be guranteed (by law) to every individual, regardless of where they live. This does not apply to weapons. They can be used to deny other human beings of their inalienable rights, therefore they shouldn't be sold like friggin' ice-cream (as in: available to absolutely everyone). That has to be controlled for the sake of the people and their safety so that the massacre we all saw in the news a few months ago does not repeat itself.
And what would you think if a lunatic with a loaded AK47 strolled right past your family home? Wouldn't you feel compelled to call the cops and have him arrested, regardless of what the Constitution says about the right to carry lethal weapons?
Don Corleone
07-18-2007, 20:01
I'm not agitated a bit (sorry if I gave off such an impression). The thing is, I remeber those words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." I didn't think I needed to EXPLAIN why freedom of speech should be guranteed (by law) to every individual, regardless of where they live. This does not apply to weapons. They can be used to deny other human beings of their inalienable rights, therefore they shouldn't be sold like friggin' ice-cream (as in: available to absolutely everyone). That has to be controlled for the sake of the people and their safety so that the massacre we all saw in the news a few months ago does not repeat itself.
And what would you think if a lunatic with a loaded AK47 strolled right past your family home? Wouldn't you feel compelled to call the cops and have him arrested, regardless of what the Constitution says about the right to carry lethal weapons?
First, read what I've written and then ask yourself if I'm defending the rights of somebody to roam around with a loaded AK47.
Second, I never said this was a debate about justifying the value of rights.
I didn't think I needed to EXPLAIN why freedom of speech should be guranteed You don't, and I never said you should. I said that all this talk about Universal Human Rights is nothing but hot air until somebody who can actually do something about it signs on.
Sooner or later, you're going to have to recognize that prinicples themselves carry no direct weight, that they can only influence those who wield power, not control them. That is the gist of my argument. And every time you grant those in power the authority to take away some of my rights, because you don't like what I do, in reality you're weakening your own case for defending your own rights in the process.
KafirChobee
07-18-2007, 20:09
Wait a minute - where is it legal to walk around with a loaded AK-47 in a crowded neighborhood? At night? Walking down the middle of a street? Only illegal if it scares someone? Gah! Who in their right mind wouldn't be concerned seeing somone strolling about their neighborhood with a loaded semi-auto?
Of course here in Florida we could just shoot the guy because we felt threatened - no need to call the cops ... 'til his body started smelling. :yes:
And now, go on back to the legaleeze about the Bill of Rights and such.
:juggle2:
Second, I never said this was a debate about justifying the value of rights. You don't, and I never said you should. I said that all this talk about Universal Human Rights is nothing but hot air until somebody who can actually do something about it signs on.
Sooner or later, you're going to have to recognize that prinicples themselves carry no direct weight, that they can only influence those who wield power, not control them. That is the gist of my argument. And every time you grant those in power the authority to take away some of my rights, because you don't like what I do, in reality you're weakening your own case for defending your own rights in the process.
It's the people who have to defend their own rights, there ain't anyone who's gonna "do something about it" for you. Those in power obey the law, and the right to bear arms is not inalienable for every human being, some are more likely to use it for it's original purpose: to kill someone. What's the point of treating these two rights in question as equals and giving guns to millions of people if only one of them goes on a killing spree and takes out dozens of innocent lives? I'm not weakening my case as, once again, these two rights shouldn't have anything to do with each other.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-18-2007, 20:58
The "inalienable" rights are labeled as such because they have been deemed to be inherent to the human individual. That is, a government or other individuals may deny these rights or prevent their use by an individual, but cannot remove these rights from the human condition. The moment tyranny lapses, these rights will spring to the surface.
At least, that's the concept.
I'm more of a Lockean -- Life, Liberty, Property and government as a social contract to secure the same.
Goofball
07-18-2007, 22:40
Quick question:
If I were to see the subject of the thread walking toward the front door of an elementary school with his AK47 (exercising his perfectly legal right to bear arms), while I was carrying my Glock 9mm (again, exercising my constitutionally protected right to bear arms) and (after judging the risk to the children to warrant quick, decisive action) I pumped a couple of rounds into his center of mass, does anybody think I would spend any time in jail?
KukriKhan
07-18-2007, 22:59
Quick question:
If I were to see the subject of the thread walking toward the front door of an elementary school with his AK47 (exercising his perfectly legal right to bear arms), while I was carrying my Glock 9mm (again, exercising my constitutionally protected right to bear arms) and (after judging the risk to the children to warrant quick, decisive action) I pumped a couple of rounds into his center of mass, does anybody think I would spend any time in jail?
In Florida, you'd probably get a medal.
In California, you'd be held as a "person of interest", interviewed/interrogated by cops, then, if thiings turn out the way you described them above, released... only to be sued 3 months later by the AK47's next-of-kin for loss of life-time wages, and alienation of affection.
In Toronto, you'd probably have to go to counselling, for the obviously delusional thinking that you could carry a weapon.
Blodrast
07-19-2007, 01:28
In Florida, you'd probably get a medal.
In California, you'd be held as a "person of interest", interviewed/interrogated by cops, then, if thiings turn out the way you described them above, released... only to be sued 3 months later by the AK47's next-of-kin for loss of life-time wages, and alienation of affection.
In Toronto, you'd probably have to go to counselling, for the obviously delusional thinking that you could carry a weapon.
ROFL! :laugh4:
Excellent clarification, Kukri, YOU deserve a medal for this! :2thumbsup:
Crazed Rabbit
07-19-2007, 02:04
Gah, this is hopeless.
At least Gregoshi agrees with me. :2thumbsup:
I'll point out that I am not against police getting alerted and talking to a person like this - making sure he's not crazy or violent. But if it turns out that he's not either, why arrest him?
Why should the feelings of an unaffected person dictate whether or not a man is thrown in jail? I don't want to hear if it isn't good sense or smart or any of a hundred things that don't matter legally.
Ah, well...
*goes back to stand athwart history and yell 'stop!'*
ajaxfetish
07-19-2007, 03:12
The right to free speech is universal wherever you go, whenever you live.
Legally, no. Your government must protect your right to free speech. Many governments do not.
If you're speaking in abstract universals, yes you have an inherent right to free speech, and I'd argue you also have an inherent right to self-defense. It's still up to your government to decide how to defend and apply such rights in legal terms, and the bill of rights does just that for America, with the first and second amendments contributing to the defense of said rights. It's very interesting to hear you say it's up to the people to defend their rights while also suggesting they shouldn't have the right to carry weapons. "What do you want us to use? Harsh language?"
On the original topic, though, I feel very alarmed that my 15-year-old sister is driving. Can I call up the cops and have them confiscate her permit?
Ajax
Gregoshi
07-19-2007, 04:03
At least Gregoshi agrees with me. :2thumbsup:
I can tell you are alarmed by that statement CR, so I'll just turn myself in now.
Gah, this is hopeless.
At least Gregoshi agrees with me. :2thumbsup: Put me down too.
I'll point out that I am not against police getting alerted and talking to a person like this - making sure he's not crazy or violent. But if it turns out that he's not either, why arrest him?And that's exactly what should have happened. :bow:
Spetulhu
07-19-2007, 06:19
I'll point out that I am not against police getting alerted and talking to a person like this - making sure he's not crazy or violent. But if it turns out that he's not either, why arrest him?
Who knows? Perhaps this guy exercised his free speech to mouth off at the police about his right to bear arms instead of explaining WTF he's doing? That's the sort of obnoxious behaviour that gets you arrested instead of sent home with the advice to be more careful in the future.
I'll point out that I am not against police getting alerted and talking to a person like this - making sure he's not crazy or violent. But if it turns out that he's not either, why arrest him?
Well, I'm sure that if he was a member of the russian army and had some of his friends with him, you wouldn't only call it alarming, you'd call it an invasion. Otherwise I know how I'd invade the US.:laugh4:
Privateerkev
07-19-2007, 16:54
A good litmus test for actions is "would society be better off if everyone did it?" If you apply carrying a loaded AK-47 to this question, my answer is no. The reason we have gun control and arms control, as well as many other rules and regulations, is to prevent whats called "a race to the bottom". If you let someone walk around with a loaded AK, he is more safe but others become less safe. Others will then walk around with a loaded AK to feel more safe. When there are more people walking around with an AK, everyone ends up less safe. Therefore, you impose laws and regulations on society in order to make some sort of limit or cap on actions. If this person wishes to interact with society, they need to understand that walking around with a loaded projectile is not only dangerous, but makes people nervous.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-19-2007, 17:09
A good litmus test for actions is "would society be better off if everyone did it?" If you apply carrying a loaded AK-47 to this question, my answer is no. The reason we have gun control and arms control, as well as many other rules and regulations, is to prevent whats called "a race to the bottom". If you let someone walk around with a loaded AK, he is more safe but others become less safe. Others will then walk around with a loaded AK to feel more safe. When there are more people walking around with an AK, everyone ends up less safe. Therefore, you impose laws and regulations on society in order to make some sort of limit or cap on actions. If this person wishes to interact with society, they need to understand that walking around with a loaded projectile is not only dangerous, but makes people nervous.
Your basic premise -- that the greater the percentage of the population that is armed, the greater the risk to that population from itself -- is not necessarily born out by facts. Consider:
http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=4&id=572
In such circumstances as the "Old West" frontier, the near ubiquitous nature of personal gun ownership seems to have mediated against violence. It should be noted that figures on the rate of gun accidents are impossible to determine and that the low rate of violence discussed in the Old West by these researchers does NOT include violence between Amerinds and White "invaders," but overall the picture of a universally armed population is not as bleak as you suggest.
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-19-2007, 17:25
How much easier is it to restrict speech of a disarmed populace than an armed one?
AntiochusIII
07-19-2007, 17:32
How much easier is it to restrict speech of a disarmed populace than an armed one?Not much, really. Modern dictatorships are too smart to rely on straight-up tyranny. Propaganda, a Big Bad External Enemy (or Internal Enemy, aka historically Jews), mob mentality against dissidents, state-controlled media; such tactics easily negate the anti-tyranny effect of an "armed" populace versus and "unarmed" one. In fact, those arms would probably be used more to lynch the Enemy than fighting the Secret Police.
A particularly cynical one would even further observe that in this Doomsday scenario (which would after all be required to have an effective dictatorship in a country like the USA) ownership of weapons would become an illusion of power among the people, only furthering the goals of the state...
God I feel cyberpunk today.
KafirChobee
07-19-2007, 20:05
The NRA is one of the more powerful lobbying groups in DC. They pretty much get there way since the majority of American politicians fear looking weak and all want the NRA contributions for their campaigns.
Tried to access stats on the matter of gun violence, but found mostly NRA hype that other methods of death far out weigh those of firearms. One even proposed that doctors be banned, since there are 800,000 in the US and they cause 120,000 deaths due to malpractice a years. Hmmm, inventive perspective, eh?
At any rate, here are a couple sources - the latter one can be used for searching US vital statistics (by State if one wishes). Enjoy.
http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000473.html
http:www.tincher.to/deaths.htm
:bullseye: :hmg:
While the bloke's actions were legal they were far from sensible. Who here really thinks that it is a good idea to let people walk down the middle of a road with a loaded semi-auto rifle? Who here truly believes that this is something which a well-balanced and/or sensible individual would do even if it was his legal right? Who here wouldn't call the police if this guy walked past their home? Who wouldn't breathe a sigh of relief when the police took his gun away (without a gunfight, hurrah!)? Who here is actually surprised that people can be arrested for this?
Crazed Rabbit
07-20-2007, 01:50
Not much, really. Modern dictatorships are too smart to rely on straight-up tyranny.
You're right. They use tricks just like this. Unsurprisingly, you're completely wrong in your first sentence.
Who here is actually surprised that people can be arrested for this?
I'm surprised, seeing as the law - you know, the legal foundation behind our country, says he cannot arrested for doing something legal.
But, oh, wait! Some people are scared! Let's throw him in jail!
A good litmus test for actions is "would society be better off if everyone did it?"
So you want to live in a society based on kindergarten rules, eh? Ask yourself though; how many men would rape a woman with an AK47?
The NRA is one of the more powerful lobbying groups in DC. They pretty much get there way since the majority of American politicians fear looking weak and all want the NRA contributions for their campaigns.
Noone is talking about the NRA. If you want to go off on some stupid rant, start your own thread.
CR
Gregoshi
07-20-2007, 02:30
Ask yourself though; how many men would rape a woman with an AK47?
"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?!" - Castle Guard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail
...if you know what I mean.
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-20-2007, 04:33
I wouldn't... either way you look at it.
"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?!" - Castle Guard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail
...if you know what I mean.
Swallows probably carry them.
Gregoshi
07-20-2007, 05:48
In case my "coconut migration" post is too obtuse, CR seems to be suggesting that women carry around AK-47s to prevent from being raped. That's a bit of an absurd suggestion, hence the Monty Python reference.
We seem to be unable to bridge the gap between "legal becomes illegal" vs common sense. Since a gun is the catalyst for the point CR is trying address, it is clouding the issue, thus resulting in the good ol' gun/anti-gun sidebar discussion. :shrug:
Can you use AK-47's for hunting?
Gregoshi
07-20-2007, 05:58
I can't speak for everywhere, but I believe in Pennsylvania, you cannot hunt with an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
Edit: I just confirmed that automatic and semi-automatic weapons cannot be use to hunt in Pennsylvania
I can't speak for everywhere, but I believe in Pennsylvania, you cannot hunt with an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
Hmmm, I wonder what this guy was up too then.
Gregoshi
07-20-2007, 06:08
There just isn't enough information in the story to say what he was up to, Ichigo. Was he out for a "walk"? Was he just carrying the gun from house to car? How was he carrying the gun? Too many unanswered questions.
There just isn't enough information in the story to say what he was up to, Ichigo. Was he out for a "walk"? Was he just carrying the gun from house to car? How was he carrying the gun? Too many unanswered questions.
Indeed, exactly what I was thinking.
Ironside
07-20-2007, 11:13
You're right. They use tricks just like this. Unsurprisingly, you're completely wrong in your first sentence.
It depends on a number of factors. Are you having enough support throughout the nation (this trigger the final rebellion, doesn't matter with arms or not, unless the dictator has extreme control of the military and is prepared to execute most of the nation's population)?
Are the support only local? Then it depends on what meassures the dictorship is willing to use (from tank and aircrafts to leveling the city)
Are you aiming for partisan warfare? Then it will help at the beginning (supplies is needed and when they're acquired any original amount of weapons starts to get irrelevant. Weapon training has it's uses a bit longer).
Will it help prevent dictorship control of the military and media? No
Will it help understanding the point were a rebellion is needed? No
Can you give examples of were a dictorship has been repelled before it reallly started due to an armed population?
I'm surprised, seeing as the law - you know, the legal foundation behind our country, says he cannot arrested for doing something legal.
But, oh, wait! Some people are scared! Let's throw him in jail!
Get's drunk (legal), shouts (legal), naked (legal) and pees (legal) outside CR's home. And yet I'll probably gets arrested on public disorder like the AK47 guy.
(Only to check, there isn't any speciffic laws against public nudity and peeing in public in the US right? In that case shift the stuff to something that isn't technically illegal but will get the police pulling you away on public disorder).
A public disorder issue feels entirely right in this case (considering that carrying around a loaded AK47 is legal by itself).
So you want to live in a society based on kindergarten rules, eh? Ask yourself though; how many men would rape a woman with an AK47?
You didn't think that through right? I'm not that sure that it would make a drop at all, unless you consider it a good idea carrying around AK47 in the middle of the night while drunk and having one constantly prepared at home, and it would only affect the rapes that occurs when the victim feels extremly threatened before it's too late.
The rare type of random assult-rape might be lower, but the rapists are still there and as mentioned this is far from common.
AntiochusIII
07-20-2007, 11:51
You're right. They use tricks just like this. Unsurprisingly, you're completely wrong in your first sentence.omglol you're wrong...? :inquisitive:
Jeez, if that's the best retort you could come up with :/
Get's drunk (legal), shouts (legal), naked (legal) and pees (legal) outside CR's home. And yet I'll probably gets arrested on public disorder like the AK47 guy.
(Only to check, there isn't any speciffic laws against public nudity and peeing in public in the US right? In that case shift the stuff to something that isn't technically illegal but will get the police pulling you away on public disorder).
Getting drunk is legal, but you can be cited for public drunkeness if you are, well, in public and acting stupid. Getting naked would get you an indecent exposure charge, and peeing outside CR's house would get you a public urination charge. We are such prudes! :drama1:
Ironside
07-20-2007, 18:08
Getting drunk is legal, but you can be cited for public drunkeness if you are, well, in public and acting stupid. Getting naked would get you an indecent exposure charge, and peeing outside CR's house would get you a public urination charge. We are such prudes! :drama1:
Hmmm, celebrating Stalin outside CR's house, perhaps for days? Or playing a cruel, brutal and bloody play, perhaps infront of a school (still on public ground)? Pull out a chair and sitting there stirring angry at people for days? :laugh4:
Crazed Rabbit
07-20-2007, 23:40
In case my "coconut migration" post is too obtuse, CR seems to be suggesting that women carry around AK-47s to prevent from being raped.
Actually, I'd suggest a good handgun. I was pointing out less women would be raped if they all carried AKs, which would be good for society.
Since a gun is the catalyst for the point CR is trying address, it is clouding the issue, thus resulting in the good ol' gun/anti-gun sidebar discussion. :shrug:
True.
Hmmm, celebrating Stalin outside CR's house, perhaps for days?
In the middle of the road? You'd probably get fined for blocking the roadway. And there's no public land nearby, and I doubt the neighboring farmers would let you use their cow fields.
Anyways, I still wouldn't care. Heck, if you had free booze, I might partake.
Or playing a cruel, brutal and bloody play, perhaps infront of a school (still on public ground)?
If you had the play on public ground, they might get you for not having a permit of some sort (which is BS), but I wouldn't care.
Pull out a chair and sitting there stirring angry at people for days?
Um...I wouldn't care. Wait a minute - how did we get here? :dizzy2:
CR
KafirChobee
07-21-2007, 00:30
I agree with others that have noted there simply is not enough information about what this guy was doing. Was he just taking his AK to his car or over to show a neighbor down the block - though why he felt it necessary to load it is still beyond my comprehension. BTW, I don't believe it is legal anywhere in the US to hunt with an AK47 (though it is possible?).
A personal experience I had a number of years ago when I still lived in LA (Northridge) makes this sound like a major incident in my book. The FFL (fantasy football league) I belonged to met to fromulate final rules for the coming season at a restruant near Arcadia. Upon concluding our business (as it were) a few of us remained to bs and party. [note: since I had more than a few miles to drive I limited myself to a couple beers - over the 2 or 3 hours] Ended up with two brothers (Chicanos) and me leaving at the same time. Just as we hit the door, I remembered leaving something at our table and returned to retreive it. As I approached my car I noticed my friends talking with a couple people - their business not mine so I continued to my car thinking "geesh those guys know people everywhere". As I unlocked the car door I heard, "Hey! You! Come over here!" As I turned I now saw my two friends sitting on the ground with their hands behind them and that a cop was approaching me - I assumed it was him, who had shouted at me. "You know these guys?" Now not knowing what the hey was going on it passed through my mind to say, "Who, me? Know a couple of chollos?" (which is what I should have said according to my friends). Instead I said I did. This led to an hour ordeal in the parking lot - and an illegal search of my car (back then a person still had the right to say no you may not - unless of course they actually found something on your person. Even then they had to show cause to search you.). Now, I had been with my son camping the week-end before this (Mexican-American Army - mostly cops) and had not gone to my storage locker to store my camping equipment - so it all got dumped out and thrashed through. Nothing, except the old stock from my SKS-47 that I had replaced (thankfully I had taken my gun and put it in my locked storage case at home - along with my M-15, and Glock). This didn't deter these guys though, and when they found an aluminum baseball bat (my sons - he took it with and used it to hit rocks when he got bored of shooting or riding the ATV) they went ballistic. Seems the bat was a conceal weapon. So, my friends were set free - and I was arrested for having a concealed weapon. Even after I explained it was my son's, etc - I went to jail, was charged and had a $5,000 bail set against me. At the end of this afare it cost me $700 - a friend had to pay the bail (he did in full, versus paying a bondsman $500 for posting it. I reimbused him immediately of course and did get it back after the "trial") - $600 for a lawyer and a $100 fine (saving face there and illiminating my ability to sue).
Imagine, if I had my SKS in the trunk - folding stock, sniper-scope, heavy barrel - let alone my Glock.
See, I'm not anti-guns, but I am against stupid or criminal people owning them. Still, I'm for all the controls possible to keep guns out of their hands and for law-enforcement to be able to trace where, and who is selling them to them. One would wish to believe 9/11 taught us something. Obviously not - for some.
Ironside
07-21-2007, 13:38
Um...I wouldn't care. Wait a minute - how did we get here? :dizzy2:
CR
Uuuhhh, well uhm you mean we're actually supposed to have a point somewhere? :oops:
:thinking2: :idea2:
The point was that you'll need a law that makes it possible to remove people that have a disturbing or frightening behavior, even if that behavior is still technically legal.
And from what I understood from the original article that's exactly the case here, as carrying around a loaded AK47 without a very good reason, is disturbing and frightening for the people in the area.
And unless disorderly conduct is a severe crime, also that is a fitting penalty.
Nothing severe, but still enough to put some weight behind "you don't do that".
Crazed Rabbit
07-21-2007, 16:44
So, basically, you want to throw people in jail who don't conform to society?
CR
This might be my discussion, I don't even live in the U.S. but I think it's stupid to arrest someone that was doing something legal. Obviously the guy didn't need an AK, but still, he wasn't doing anythng illegal.
But that said, American laws, to me, are freakishly messed up.
Well, disturbing the peace is illegal, not legal from what I gather. So what's the point?
Maybe you're angry because that law effectively rules out your right to carry machineguns around on the street, but you wanted to talk about what's legal, no?
Ironside
07-22-2007, 10:02
So, basically, you want to throw people in jail who don't conform to society?
CR
That's what everyone that isn't anarchists wants... The question is on what level (in this case I consider fines to be fitable punishment, unless there's more about the intent of the weapon carrier).
And here's something that I suspect haven't gotten speciffic laws against it, creation and/or dispersion of stinking substances like Ethanethiol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanethiol). ~;p
So, basically, you want to throw people in jail who don't conform to society?
CR
In this case, yes.
So, basically, you want to throw people in jail who don't conform to society?
CR
you have just described what every law means at it´s core.
Major Robert Dump
07-25-2007, 17:02
The question I have is "why?"
Why do it? Personally, had I seen him, I would have immediately assumed the worst and gotten ready to shoot the guy myself. Either hes a loonbag, or he's defending himself from a loonbag, but what are we supposed to do? Go up to him and say "hey bro, you crazy? No? Okay, cya.'
It was irresponsible and retarded. While I don't necessarily agree with him being arrested,if he is told to stop because he is alarming people he needs to stop. Once the police determine he's not a threat is the rest of the town supposed to know? Does he get a sandwich board to carry that says Police Approved: Not a Threat. Will other law enforcement agencies get the memo so they don't :daisy: when they see the guy? How many traffic accidents will he cause, how much commerce will be disupted? How many people will trample each other?
So, while I agree on principle with his right to carry the weapon based on his local laws, I also agree, on principle, that he should be arrested if people and officers made it clear that he was causing a disturbance and he didn't stop. Think yelling "fire" in a crowded building.
What a flippin idiot.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.