Skip to main content

View Diary: GunPhail XII.I or "it's ok... I'm with MAIG" (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So infractions such as (0+ / 0-)
    supplying alcohol to a minor
    should disqualify people from owning guns ?

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

    by indycam on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 10:57:01 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  In my opinion? It's child endangerment. n/t (11+ / 0-)

      When you add "handguns" to the alcohol?  Certainly cause to remove "gun owner" from your list of attributes.

      I know people convicted of Felonies who'd never act this way around minors.  We ban THOSE people from owning guns, and yet this is too often a "aw shucks, he didn't mean it" sort-of thing.

      Actions against persons, should be cause to remove your right to a firearm.  Property offenses?  Not so much in my opinion.

      An example:
      Possession of a salable amount of marijuana is a property offense.  Getting 2nd Graders stoned is an offense against persons.

      The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

      by 43north on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 11:15:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you are for taking away peoples rights . (0+ / 0-)

        Good to know because some people on this site seem to be
        dead set against that very thing .
        Guns and alcohol don't mix and anyone who caught mixing the two should have their rights re guns removed ?
        People who use their gun in a irresponsible way and endangered kids should have their rights re guns taken away ?

        Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

        by indycam on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 01:19:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I grew up in a "guns" household, guns region. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wader, Joy of Fishes

          I saw a semi-relative, a few decades older than myself arrive with what I suspect was a bit more than coffee in his thermos.

          An hour later, he get's a foot tangled in barbed wire, crossing a fence line, and goes down face-first.  His 12 gauge blasts 2 rounds off (Remington Auto-5) and tears the hell out of a tree then ground.

          Another member of the party, also decades older than me, walks-over and asks:  "You ok, Bill?"

          Upon the affirmative - and blaming me for not holding the wire lower - the following happened:

          Bill was butt-stroked unconscious and left behind without his gun.

          "That's what we did to the French in Morocco, the Italians in Sicily, and the Germans in France."

          Bill never hunted with any of us, ever again.  Partly out of his grudge-based "I'm never wrong - it's you fucking kids" attitude - as he wasn't wrong for having a "few nips" in his coffee.  It was "you candy-asses".

          We OTOH, felt a habitual drunk had no reason to be in our company, armed.  All of use knew that it was only moments from any of us getting two doses @ 1 1/2 ounces of High Brass birdshot in our back.

          Bill's 12 gauge was returned to him via his wife.
          Missing was the firing pin as I very efficiently cleaned his shotgun as ordered, and must have forgotten that part upon re-assembly.  Huh.  My bad.

          So your "right" as a (popular phrase back then): "Free, White and Twenty-one" adult male to drink, hunt and shoot remained unfettered.  Kinda.  Sorta.  Ok, not so much.

          Interestingly, the only "crime" that day was butt-stroking Bill to unconscious.  A phone call regarding Bill's actions to the cops would have resulted in precisely nothing.
          Public intoxication, isn't out in the woods.
          Reckless endangerment, what got shot, a tree?  Dirt?
          Back-then cops weren't afraid to say:
          "Don't waste my time ever again."

          The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

          by 43north on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:53:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A non answer answer . (0+ / 0-)
            Guns and alcohol don't mix and anyone who caught mixing the two should have their rights re guns removed ?
            People who use their gun in a irresponsible way and endangered kids should have their rights re guns taken away ?

            Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

            by indycam on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:06:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, it was an answer you didn't like. (3+ / 0-)

              My position on crimes against persons, verses crimes against property, regarding the prohibition of possession has been consistent.

              There are persons with misdemeanor convictions for assault - as "mutual combat" was the opinion of the court - who should never have avoided a Felony.  
              Money, lawyers and family connections often aid this evasion.

              What they are is predatory persons.  The guy who can't keep his hands off girls, fists off guys - and has some juice to avoid the Felony again and again.  

              For my money?  Change the law to eliminate property convictions, and add all crimes against persons as a means to disqualification for gun possession.

              And before you ask:  Burglary, the taking by stealth of a person's possessions.  Which is not Robbery.  
              Robbery is taking by force of a person's possessions.  
              Only the latter should warrant a potential lethal force response.

              The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

              by 43north on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 07:20:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ... (0+ / 0-)
                No, it was an answer you didn't like.
                No it was a story about your youth , it did not address my questions of if you were for stripping peoples right of gun ownership or not . The pomposity of you stating "No, it was an answer you didn't like." when you don't know it for a fact is very telling .
                and add all crimes against persons as a means to disqualification for gun possession.
                Discharge of a weapon without justification ?
                Would you remove the persons rights to own a gun ?
                The bullet was let go and it could have struck anyone in its path .    
                regarding the prohibition of possession has been consistent.
                That's nice , but am I supposta go and read your opinions somewhere before I ask questions ?  
                There are persons with misdemeanor convictions for assault - as "mutual combat" was the opinion of the court - who should never have avoided a Felony.  
                Money, lawyers and family connections often aid this evasion.
                So in your opinion , they should have their rights to own a gun removed ?
                What they are is predatory persons.  The guy who can't keep his hands off girls, fists off guys - and has some juice to avoid the Felony again and again.
                So in your opinion , they should have their rights to own a gun removed ?
                And before you ask:  Burglary, the taking by stealth of a person's possessions.  Which is not Robbery.  
                Robbery is taking by force of a person's possessions.  
                Only the latter should warrant a potential lethal force response.
                So breaking and entry into a home to take a TV , no gun right removal and telling a person to stand aside or else to take a TV gets the persons gun rights removed ?
                Only the latter should warrant a potential lethal force response.
                So if a person does any crime that might justify a "lethal force response" should have their gun rights removed ? And any person who does crimes not justifying a "lethal force response" is ok to keep their gun rights ?

                Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                by indycam on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:47:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Evidently you're dense, or this is your diary... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  and I have to play by your rules.

                  Other option:  Kos, is that really you posting as "indycam"?
                  You scoundrel, why didn't you say so.

                  A crime against a person, should result in your disqualification for having a firearm.

                  That position is of course, inconsistent with our English Law heritage, where your home is your castle, and yourself forfeit if outside of your home, or claim of sanctuary.
                  After all, it's the King's county, forest, highway, streets, roads and town.  You can google placenames for each, proving my point.

                  Now, as you're trolling:  
                  IF I take arms up against a person forcibly assaulting or robbing me?  As codified permissible under Article 35 of the NYS Penal Law? (qv: Defenses of Justification)

                  THAT is NOT THE CRIME.
                  THE CRIME is being assaulted or robbed.

                  CAPITALS used as someone's being DENSE.

                  Before you get all "Trayvon Martin" citing SYG on me, realize in saying so - you're validating Zimmerman's position as a person being attacked.  A point I'm not willing to concede.
                  Zimmerman should have stayed in his car, awaited police and provided a good witness statement.
                  Option B is go-the-fuck-home and play "the Quicksdraw" in front of the mirror.  Preferably with an unloaded gun.

                  Not being his girlfriend, I can't say how quick on the trigger he was - despite my suspicions.

                  The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

                  by 43north on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 03:44:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  And once again . (0+ / 0-)
                Guns and alcohol don't mix and anyone who caught mixing the two should have their rights re guns removed ?
                People who use their gun in a irresponsible way and endangered kids should have their rights re guns taken away ?
                How about answering these questions directly .

                Just for grins , copy / paste the questions into your reply and answer them one at a time directly ? Think you could do that ?

                Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                by indycam on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:49:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The story from my youth (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  was indicative of a self-policing firearms community.

                  Drinking and shooting resulted in the equivalent of the Amish Shunning.

                  The police at the time were disinterested.  As they were with Domestic Violence and Driving While Intoxicated.

                  "Endangering kids" - young goats?

                  "Endangering children" has three aspects:

                  1) opinion - if there's anyone under age 18 present it's "endangering".  Nice try.

                  2) Child Protective Services - a variable feast, as not codified in law.  On Agent says no foul, another takes the kids and wants the parents arrested.  Too ambiguous, too political.

                  3) Matter of law.  THIS I agree, would result in criminal charges.  You need a crime, and the order of a court, to remove or prohibit possession of guns.

                  The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

                  by 43north on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 03:54:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Its like pulling teeth again , (0+ / 0-)

                    you will never answer directly ,
                    its just game game game insult game insult game .

                    You are for removing peoples rights to own guns , that is clear .
                    You are for violence against people , that is clear .
                    You are for being judge , jury and executioner , that is clear .

                    You are for playing games and spewing insults , that's clear .

                    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

                    by indycam on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 10:59:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  How's that getting trolled thing going for ya (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper

        43?

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 01:35:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Funny that you should say that . (0+ / 0-)

          Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

          by indycam on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:07:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  haha! I just found this after your other (0+ / 0-)

            comments showed up today! I think you need a new descriptor to mix up your comments to me, besides just 'funny'.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:47:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site