TheWhiteknife's page

Hmm. I hope BT is doing alright, he hasn't posted in a while...

This is my favorite recent example of government overreach:
Oklahoma Governor Signs Anti-Protest Law Imposing Huge Fines on “Conspirator” Organizations
I wonder what the penalty for violating someones first amendment rights are in Oklahoma?

Im going to just go out on a guess here, and say "probably nothing"

I should check back here more often to see if the usual suspects still offer their same full throated defense of government over-reach now that Trump is in office as they used to. I had guessed future president Santorum, but Trump seems to fill my prediction just as nicely.

I hope y'all are doing well.

I too hope you are all doing well.

We'll bang your wife, ruin you in court, and then make ourselves immune to the rules that we hold you to!

This must be that "government-is-held-more-easily-accountable-than-private-individuals" that I heard so much about before.

Oh man, it gets better. When his mistress broke it off with him, Judge McCree lied to prosecuters to try to get her arrested for stalking and extortion.

So where the heck are the perjury charges?

We'll bang your wife, ruin you in court, and then make ourselves immune to the rules that we hold you to!

This must be that "government-is-held-more-easily-accountable-than-private-individuals" that I heard so much about before.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

thejeff wrote:

"Blossoming"? It's been going on for decades.

I don't think we've seen anything yet, compared to where it seems to be headed. I'm pessimistically envisioning a future in which 50% of the population is on some kind of registry list for life, and I think our current 1% of the adult population actually being in prison at any given time will peak at closer to 10% before suffient political leverage to apply the brakes can be found.

I don't know. If you're thinking about the results of the sexting cases, the backlash against that has been pretty strong. I suspect it will sort itself out fairly quickly.

Reminds a little bit of the hubbub (back in the 80s? early 90s?) where people were getting busted for child porn for baby pictures. Same kind of thing, where the literal law covered it, but not the obvious intent. Some people's lives certainly got ruined, but the rules got changed, both the actual laws and the unwritten "What's actually a good idea to prosecute" rules.

I agree with both of you. I think its going to get alot worse, but when it does it will quickly get better.

In order to prosecute a 17 year old on child porn charges for sexting his 15 year old girlfriend, police plan on using injections to make him erect and then comparing his penis to the sext with "special software".

Nothing fights child porn like creating child porn. The good news is that today police abandoned this plan. The bad news is that a judge signed off on this warrant.

Feds accused of cell surveillance abuse

Do all those things that I keep suggesting that would actually be effective in reducing gun violence that you keep dismissing as sidestepping. Although opposed to a registry, I really have no problem with expanding background checks for handguns as well as forcing greater reporting to the NICS system. I just dont pretend that theyre Constitutional. I would love to see an actual liberal suggestion, one that restores power to the people, not taking it away.

What we ought not to do is pass a bunch of laws that create even more criminals.

many conservative, gun-loving states with few or no gun controls have much higher levels of gun crime.

Maybe they should try moving, then.

"Baghdad Bob" - Apparently 1/3 Miss Cleo, 1/3 Edgar Cayce, 1/3 Nostrodamus, with maybe a pinch of Yoda.

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

TheWhiteknife wrote:

End the black market?

Okay, so I ask the question: How would you reduce access to guns for criminals?

I wouldnt. I would make it so that there would be less criminals to begin with.

I'm willing to talk about other issues, such as poverty and education. I'm HUGELY in favor of trying to address those problems. I've been writing papers on things like welfare reform for over half my life.

Right now though, this topic is about managing criminal access to firearms. All I'm getting from you is a giant sidestep. You seem unwilling to do anything to try to prevent criminals from getting guns. We have criminals in this country, no matter what there will always be some level of criminal activity. Do you think criminals, not ordinary citizens but criminals, should have free and unfettered access to firearms?

No, I do not. With the same caveat as earlier, about volent felons mostly. If a guy or gal was caught urinating in public or somesuch, I really dont think that should disqualify one.

Like Ive said, and keep saying, you come up with a way that doesnt infringe upon civil liberties, and Ill be all for it.

TheWhiteknife wrote:

End the black market?

Okay, so I ask the question: How would you reduce access to guns for criminals?

I wouldnt. I would make it so that there would be less criminals to begin with.

The Second Amendment does not address the question either yea or nay. But it's a given that none of the Bill of Rights provision are absolute.

Youre right. But the Fourth Amendment definitely cover searches without a probable cause. In fact, thats the only thing it covers.

If the First Amendment is not an absolute right. (you can be jailed for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater after all), why should the Second be?

Youre right, one's usuage of one's rights is limited. One cant yell "fire', just like one cant murder people. What we dont do is straight up ban certain words from ever being spoken or demand that people subject themselves to a search if they plan on using certain words or phrases.

Supplemental: The text of the Second Amendment refers to the right to bear arms in the context of a militia. It's generally an accepted fact that militias are units that have commanders and presumably rules and regulations attached to them. So it can be argued that the Second Amendment DOES provide not only a doorway but a reason for background checks and other regulation of firearm posession.

First off, if the second stated "A well rounded breakfast being important to an awesome day, the rights of the people to eat and enjoy bacon shall not be infringed."; would you interpret it to mean that bacon could only be eaten for breakfast?

Secondly, youre telling me that I have to fill out papers that say that if we go to war, the State has every right to force me into conscription or be locked in a cage, and Im not the militia?

So..........fix that maybe?

There are literally a thousand ideas on these boards alone (probably) that could be tried. End some of the more oppressive federal agencies/laws, like DHS, DEA, fusion centers, war on terror, American imperialism etc etc. and taxes wouldnt even have to be raised, or raised that much. Hell go with the build a billion off shore turbines plan or whatever. Beats jailing more people and further degrading our liberty.

Freehold DM wrote:

What the hell caused him to flip our like that?

Also, learn from my folly. This year would not be nearly so bad if i had been in shape last year. That's all I'm going to say about that.

Yeah, even though I finally came to an agreement with the wife that I am indeed to old to get back into the ring, I too want to get back into fighting trim. If for no other reason than my daughter will be a teenager sooner than I'd like. :P

Crapfully crap. 6 year old daughter told me that a boy kissed her in school the other day. Knees be damned, I gotta get back in shape too.

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

After all, you're the one that's always pushing for addressing the underlying problem rather than the symptoms. Finding a new neighborhood with less crime would address the problem. Buying an AR-15 so you can repel a home invader is just addressing the symptom.

Finding a new neighborhood would do absolutely nothing to address the problem. Staying and addressing the problem would be addressing the problem. If sharoth moves, his neighborhood doesnt just go away. I assumed that you would know that.

I am cruious. Have you ever adressed a problem like that? I mean, have you ever, with your gun, make a neighborhood safer?

No, Ive never used a gun to make a neighbor hood safer. Who said to use a gun to make it safer?

Did you mis read my post or is this an attempted strawman?

EDIT- Infuriatingly, the Borough wouldnt allow the arcade to be built because they were afraid that a bunch of teenagers would always be "hanging around". Pulling my hair out, I could only think, "thats the point...."

No. But you agree to the background check in order to make the purchase, so it should be fine. Much like background checks for security clearances and the like. The only reason to object is because it's a gun which you have a 2nd amendment right to.

And Mexico has so much gun smuggling because there's a drug war going on over the border. Yes, I suppose if guns were as easily available there, they wouldn't need to smuggle them, but that's sort of defeating the purpose.

Yes, you do argue for other things. Generally against anything "statist". :)
But in this context, gun rights seemed pretty obviously the focus.

Sure, I can live with background checks for handguns. But I dont pretend that theyre Constitutional in the least.

So then, the obvious answer is to start ending the drug war. No ones liberty is hurt and the desired result (less gun violence) is achieved. Seems pretty win-win to me.

Well, yeah, right now, Im focusing on gun rights in a gun rights thread. Just like I rail against the Patriot Act and indefinite detention and police brutality and assassinations in other threads. It seemed that you were trying to pigeon-hole me as one of "those" who sees no problem with Republican-backed civil rights violations. I apologize if I mis-read you.

Interestingly, Chicago, NYC, and LA prosecuted the fewest gun crimes in the country.

link

Scott Betts wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

We have an alternative, it is called the Constitution........

We do NOT have a gun problem, we have a violent criminal trash problem.

The Constitution is not holy writ. We have a gun problem, and the Constitution is getting in the way of solving it. That's okay, though. It wouldn't be the first time we've had to rework the Constitution in order to make anything like real progress.

Yep once you get rid of the constitution and all freedoms it assures us you and yours can dictate how we live to your heart's content.

Dont worry Andrew, thats just his way of pretending that anyone is seeking to pass an actual amendment.

And by "elevate civil rights as their number one priority" you mean "gun rights", correct?

Because that's the only "civil liberty" any of the suggested solutions might infringe. And only marginally at that, since we're talking about registration and checks to avoid selling to certain criminals. Or possibly bans on certain types of weapons.

And pretty much only in the US is owning a gun considered a civil liberty at all. Basically any where else in the world, including some pretty nice places, that arguably treat their citizens better, this wouldn't even be part of the discussion.

Ummm no. Background checks are very much a search without probable cause that a crime has been comitted. I wouldnt consider the 4th amendment as strictly a "gun right". Remember when the left was up in arms over Bush's abuses against the Fourth? Where are they now? And Mexico, for one, has a constitutionally protected right to keep arms. They only have one licensed dealer in the whole country, if memory serves. (which might be why there is so much smuggling on the border.)

Cmon, thejeff, you know that I argue for more than just the second. I think its rather unbecoming of you to suggest otherwise.

EDIT- Remember that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that applies to citizens. Everything contained within, restricts the government from doing something. It ONLY applies to the government. If you do not see the problem with the logic of forcing citizens to plead to the government to allow them to own something that the government isnt allowed to deny to them (with few exceptions), then I dont know what to tell you.

After all, you're the one that's always pushing for addressing the underlying problem rather than the symptoms. Finding a new neighborhood with less crime would address the problem. Buying an AR-15 so you can repel a home invader is just addressing the symptom.

Finding a new neighborhood would do absolutely nothing to address the problem. Staying and addressing the problem would be addressing the problem. If sharoth moves, his neighborhood doesnt just go away. I assumed that you would know that.

And I apologize, you didnt call civil rights activists monsters. you simply stated that those who elevate civil rights as their number one priority have monstrous priorities.

Because that's completely different.

Frankly, I'd suggest alarms. A dog, if you can have and like them. Maybe work on a Neighborhood watch type of organization.

Moving is an option, if possible.

Any of that boosts your safety more than a gun in the house does.

Id suggest all that too. What I wouldnt suggest is that we infringe upon the civil liberties of everyone else within the neighborhood, just to be safer.

Im pretty sure Sharoth wasnt talking a hypothetical. He (she?) seemed to say that it actually happened to him. But he should move. I wonder why he didnt think of it before.

Everyone, move! Before those civil right monsters get you!

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Right, I forgot youre the guy who thinks Civil Rights are for "monsters"

Youre the guy whose proposed solution for those living in high crime areas is to, and I quote, "move".

I agreed with the move comment, IIRC. Since the context wasn't "high crime areas", but locations where you were likely to need to fight off multiple determined armed attackers just to survive.

That's not a high crime area, that's a war zone.

The example was given as a reason you'd need an assault weapon with a large magazine.

So if you dont like our gun laws, just move.

Seems rather silly doesnt it?

Edit- And anyways, I just checked. Nope, my memory served correct. copy/paste:

sharoth wrote:
Hey Scott.
Hi, Sharoth.

Quote
WHERE should I move to,
Somewhere with a crime rate of less than oh-god-someone's-in-the-house.

Scott Betts Everybody! If you dont like it, just move!

Latest commie propaganda on the police murder of a 7-year-old Detroit girl

Ive been keeping tabs on her case since the original "Gov Folly" thread.

Whats the over/under on any meaningful prosecution?

I think we can do better.

I agree

I also find the level of violence we've had to be unacceptable. Yes it's trending down, but it should just be lower as well.

I agree, again.

The best deterrence to crime is increasing the chance of being caught.

I disagree. The best deterrence is not putting people in situations where they feel they HAVE to turn to crime.

I'd like to hear a suggestion on how we can increase the chance that people who deal in black/grey market guns will be caught.

End the black market?

Right, I forgot youre the guy who thinks Civil Rights are for "monsters"
Youre the guy whose proposed solution for those living in high crime areas is to, and I quote, "move".

Show me. Show me right now, where Ive said, "its good enough". You cant, because I havent. Ive proposed for months now that you should work on fixing the underlying causes of violence, not the symptoms. "Fixing" the symptoms with civil liberty crushing and highly rascist ideas, I might add.

But to address your strawman, Ill once again state: Being anti-registry and anti-ban =/= wanting to watch kids die for the lulz.

How many people have been killed by their own govenrnment in the last 100 years? 300 million? more? And more are killed EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I reject the idea of American exceptionalism. We are no diferent than anyone else. Bigger now, sure. But not different

Ok whats the rate vs say 1975? Last year was actually a spike. Whats the rate from 50 or 40 or 30 years ago? Tell us that Scott Betts. Use your internet powers to save us all from ourselves, because YOU seem to think we cant find out on our own. (hint: its more than 2%)

Here, Ill do it for you From those "gun-nuts at Berkely

I ignore you because I dream of a future where not only crime is down, but being a jerk and relying on demonisation of one's opponents is too.

I remember why I ignore you now.

Scott Betts, I want you to tell me what your worried will happen if we continue to not have a registry? That crime will continue to decrease?

DumberOx wrote:

Yes. Its called hyperbole used correctly.

And still no evidence.

The quote that (I think) hes referring to was never said by any imperial soldiers. If he's thinking of the "Rifle behind every blade of grass" quote, Im pretty sure its from US issued war propaganda with the quote falsely attributed to Yamashita. Ill try to find a link for that too.

From back when the government wanted everyone armed and also asked private citiens to send rifles to Britian to arm their citizens too.

EDIT

Yamamoto, not Yamashita. And I dunno where I got the war propaganda thing from, but according to wiki, its attributed to Macarthur's historian:

link

Then you need to show what you're going to do about those violent criminals to reduce gun violence. Give me a viable answer and we can leave guns alone.

Well seeing as how its been trending downward almost every year for the last 40 years, I fail to see why we need to do anything.

Amusingly, Ive read that one factor that may contribute to that downward trend may be the readily availibility of violent games and shows to vent off steam. Ill see if I can find a link.

EDIT

link

Another link

Monsanto Protection Act signed into law

No, honestly I dont. I really dont.

Edit- and Ive posted before Im ok with some felons buying guns. I guess it depends on what exactly the felony is. I think there should be some mechanism that allows certain felons to become normal people, with full rights again.

Hug the lightweight and fall over.

Forget 8 hour courses. My elementary school had a battledome.

haha that was actually something taught in those 9 years of middle-high school wrestling: If your opponent is 8 in or more shorter than you, do that. It works. I know, I was only 5'4 until I hit 19. 8/

no, I havent. Just the only one (1) that you've come up with. 2 if you count background checks. Both of which are in direct violation of the Bill of Rights. But nice try again.

Edit- to respond to your edit: Sure you should use your protected right to speech to do whatever you want, as long as it doesnt interfere with anyone else's rights.

Just like I should be able to purchase, sell, own, manufacture, etc any gun that I want. But I CANNOT use it to murder someone. that seems like a good deal to me.

What I would NEVER suggest is what you seem to think is a nifty idea. Before you use your speech, you should get that speech checked by government censors first to make sure it wont offend anyone and also, give them your name, address, etc just in case it does.

Are we talking about registration or about background checks?
Because I have no idea how you keep criminals from buying guns without checking who you're selling them too.

Or what the objection to registration is, other than "It's my RIGHT!!!! And I don't wanna!"

The original post was about registration.

And what more objection do you need? It is inalienable right, after all, and would require nothing less than an amendment to change. Sure it WOULD make law enforcements job far far easier. But then, so would removing Miranda rights.

Being unwilling to do thing one to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms is functionally only a shade or two off from your hyperbolic phrasing. Which, by the way, no one here nor in other threads let alone thejeff has said or implied.

Oh, you mean the guy I was actually replying to?

On the other hand, the only opposition I hear to gun registration seems to be "but...then they'd know where I live fer when the gubmint confuskaetz demz!!

Which has been said by literally no one. keep trying though.

Edit- although now that you brought it up, its not exactly far-fetched, seeing as how the "gubmint" made it a habit to confiscate Native American arms before comitting genocide upon them. But at least it wouldnt happen in modern times, like in post-katrina New Orleans. /derp derp.

You have to register a car.
You have to register to vote.
You have to register to get married.
You need to have paperwork on file with appropriate authorities to own land or a house.
You have to have paperwork on file in order to receive wages.

Why is needing to have paperwork filed with appropriate authorities in the case of guns suddenly OMG TYRANNY!?

Why do you assume that Im for all or any of those?

We want to hold people who own firearms responsible for acts done with their firearms, or at least be able to easily trace them back to them...but you're not willing to do a single thing to make that happen. K.

sigh.

We both want to keep criminals from acquiring firearms, but you're (maybe I'm misremembering, forgive me if I am) against mandatory background checks.

*throws hands in the air*

Statists got to state, I guess. I mostly wanna give all the criminals all the guns. Whatevs, Ill continue the discussion, when you actually have something to discuss.

Which doesn't lead to the black youth filling our overcrowded prisons. Just to not being able to buy the gun.

Or as like to call it, not being able to excercise their Constitutionally protected rights.

Of course, the same is true now, it's just easier to get around the checks. Especially if you're a good-old-boy buying privately from other good-old-boys.
And is the argument really that we shouldn't try to keep felons from buying guns because of the racially biased criminal justice system? Is the best response to that really, "Keep locking them up, but make sure criminals can buy guns legally"?

Once again, Id like to point out that "registration isnt a good idea" =/= "Lets give all the criminals a bunch of guns!!1!eleventy!1. I'd appreciate it if we can stop pretending that anyone is saying that.

You may have a point on the other two, although most proposals I've seen have only banned manufacture and new purchases. And demographics suggest that rural whites are more interested in assault weapons and large magazines.

And those same demographics say that those rural whites arent really causing all that much crime. So why single them out? Dont get me wrong, I dont think either the "good old boys" or black male youth should have to petition the government to excercise a right that the government isnt allowed to infringe upon!

You're not likely to be walking the streets in Harlem with a Bushmaster and a 50 round magazine hidden in your pants.

As an aside and for a musical interlude, I'd like to point out that I first learned what an AK-47 was from Ice Cube.

I would have done the exact same thing. And kudos to you for taking a self defense class. 9 years of wrestling in school have left my knees shot, but I wouldnt trade it for the world for the body control and muscle memory it taught me.

And which stricter gun control proposals are going to be targeting black male youth? Assault weapon bans? Magazine restrictions? All the various background check laws just make it harder to buy, they don't make it any more illegal to have. Even most of the assault weapon/magazine size proposals are on purchases, not arresting you for possession.

In order:

"Assault Weapon Ban": Yes, if its a true ban, not just on manufacture. (that, while tyranical, would be equal.)

Magazine restrictions: Most definitely. Lets say I dont comply. Lets say at the same time, a black male youth also doesnt comply. Who's more likely to get caught? If somehow, we both get caught, who is more likely to go to jail and/or serve a longer sentence?

Background checks/registration: Due to stop and frisk and other such harrassing tactics (protip: we dont really have any of that in "Pennsytucky") Who is more likely to fail background checks for trumped up or even blatently false charges and have their rights denied to them? Me or a black male youth?

How is that even a relevant analogy. Requiring everyone to buy a house isn't even possible since most who don't own one couldn't come close to affording it.
Registering guns, OTOH, would only add a little bit of paperwork and wouldn't interfere with anyone's right to bear arms.

It is relevent insofar as that just because something is effective and would help, doesnt mean its a good idea. (remember the reason that most people didnt have health insurance was simply because they couldnt afford it. Mandate home sales, I say!)

And I would definitely consider it an infringement. Would you consider it an infringement if anyone planning to excercise their first amendment rights via protest had to first submit their name, address, etc etc to authorities first?

But then, of course, gun control has always been racist and classist.

This, as well. I can only imagine that our already over crowded prisons will swell with more black male youth with stricter gun control. Best increase taxes now to pay for more (probably privately run) prisons!

I absolutely hate that the left is holding up Reagan as some sort of hero for signing stricter gun control into law when the only reason he did so was because scary black people.

Just for the record, do you think that a national registry would not help in tracing guns used in crimes and in breaking the distribution networks?

Do you think that is not a useful goal?

Or is just outweighed by the consequences to liberty of having such a registry?

Edit: Or something else altogether?

In order:

Of course it would help.
Of course it would be useful. Just like mandating that everyone should buy a house would help in reducing homelessness and rebound the housing market, a definitely useful goal.

This.

Nope.

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Yeah except one increases liberty and the other decreases it. I know which one I would pick.

Yes, holding individuals responsible for their own actions decreases liberty. It decreases one's liberty to inflict harm on others without repercussions. That's not a liberty you ought to be arguing for.

Im going to take you in good faith here, and assume that youre not trying to put words in my mouth.

I got no problem with holding individuals responsible for their actions. I DO have a problem with forcing people to register to excercise their inalienable rights. I would be just as against a proposal to register the names and addresses of anyone using their first amendment protected rights to protest a president or senator. Come up with a better way that doesnt include a registry and Id probably be behind it.

Yeah except one increases liberty and the other decreases it. I know which one I would pick.

And again, its not really evidence of anything either way, without a control group.

More cops who do not know how to read a warrant threaten 11 month old, shoot dog

But fear not, intrepid citizens. Your noble government will see that they are held to the same standards as you! Why, I bet the process to put them on paid administrative leave has already begun and will be completed within a matter of weeks!

PS- we need you to pay your fair share in taxes, citizen. These dynamic raids and civil suits arent free, you know.