Legal Actions Become Illegal If People Say They Are Alarmed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

I wouldn't... either way you look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?!" - Castle Guard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail

...if you know what I mean.

---

Swallows probably carry them.

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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 :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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".

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So, basically, you want to throw people in jail who don't conform to society?

CR

---

In this case, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

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.