| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/20/2015 09:31:55 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
[...]
Sad the idiot did what he did and is now dead, but like Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, you don't get to be a thug with impunity forever. |
Oh, didn't you get the memo? Thug is now off-limits, it's the new version of the 'n' word.
What you meant to say was "Sweet boy, who goes to church every Sunday and wouldn't hurt nobody".. |
Who you callin' boy? :)
|
|
|
|
07/20/2015 10:13:15 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by tate:
What an incredibly misleading headline.
"The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported."
But the headline leads one to believe anyone with Social Security benefits ... they continue to pretend they are fair and balanced, I suppose.
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Another way the Obama administration is trying to outlaw guns. Taking baby steps to achieve the ultimate goal. |
|
It is anyone with SS benefits that for what ever reason has to have someone else to manage their affaire. This includes people that are not mentally unstable but that just can't balance their checkbook. |
I call bullshit. With SS the only way the money isn't put into your own hands is if you are physically unable to do banking, or mentally impaired. Not because you can't balance your checkbook. My one aunt who is bed bound has her benefits in her husbands name, and my other aunt who's husband had multiple strokes and is mentally impaired has his benefits in her name. That is done for banking purposes so that the physically able person can withdraw money from the account. |
|
|
|
07/20/2015 11:38:44 AM · #203 |
Please note that when I made a nice, non-emotional point about the nature of freedom that clearly demonstrates why the language Luciemac uses is problematic if not outright wrong, it goes nowhere and remains unacknowledged.
"The defensiveness of some of these posters is glaring enough to be laughable."
Responding to arguments is painted as weakness. Ignoring points is winning.
"Wow. That's impressive. You're blaming someone else for your need to keep lethal weapons. How long do you have to be retired before you take responsibility?"
Here she's sarcastically chastising a law enforcement officer, for 'blaming' his employer for providing tools that anyone reasonable understands come with many of that job's roles. Or in other words, 'explaining'. Then for dessert it's a straight-up dig. Given these comments are perfectly in line with previous comments, are we now surprised that some of the responses are, let's say, a touch enthusiastic? And this part in particular, "to keep lethal weapons"... oof... that sloppy, sloppy communication. I suppose we 'blame' Thanksgiving turkeys, steaks, and loaves of bread for our need "to keep lethal weapons" in the sharps drawer too, right?
Really, at this point I think it's much more productive to pause any advancement on the issues themselves, and focus on the quality of the arguments being presented. How can you expect someone to ever come around to your side if you don't lay the groundwork along the way? |
|
|
|
07/20/2015 11:58:36 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I suppose we 'blame' Thanksgiving turkeys, steaks, and loaves of bread for our need "to keep lethal weapons" in the sharps drawer too, right?
|
Personally I think we should blame the turkeys..... Have you seen the show "southpark"
|
|
|
|
07/20/2015 12:03:52 PM · #205 |
 Kelli
there are some on the list that yes I agree they might not be mentally able to own / use a fire arm. However what about those that wind up on the list that are mentally stable. If it is treated any way like they are treating it with the VA there will be a lot of people put on the list unjustly. If you have ever been on an anti depressant...take his guns. If the person has had insomnia...take his guns. This is just another way to creep in with another law on the path to total confiscation.
Message edited by author 2015-07-20 12:04:29.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2015 12:24:33 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Kelli
there are some on the list that yes I agree they might not be mentally able to own / use a fire arm. However what about those that wind up on the list that are mentally stable. If it is treated any way like they are treating it with the VA there will be a lot of people put on the list unjustly. If you have ever been on an anti depressant...take his guns. If the person has had insomnia...take his guns. This is just another way to creep in with another law on the path to total confiscation. |
But I don't disagree with that reasoning. You know I'm not anti-gun from previous threads on the topic. But, people on anti depressants are on a mood altering drug. I took one once, for another purpose (for quitting smoking) and it made me feel suicidal. I had never felt suicidal in my life before, and once I stopped taking them, never have again. It's a well noted side effect. Should people really have a ready means of killing themselves, or possibly others since another side effect can be rage, when on mood altering drugs? Same with sleeping pills. People have been known to do all kinds of bizarre things while on sleeping pills, including driving and not remembering what they did. I don't think they should lose the right for life, but while they're taking drugs, I'd rather they not have them. |
|
|
|
07/20/2015 01:43:47 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
This is just another way to creep in with another law on the path to total confiscation. |
This attitude, that any law which tries to limit firearms deaths, is only a disguise in some sort of cabal to confiscate every gun owned by every American citizen, is a mantra I have heard all my life. It is a view held as gospel by extremist gun owners, yet it is a view frevently held without any factual base.
We can pass new tax laws without fear of the government seizing all our assets, we can pass new motor vehicle laws without fear of the government seizing all our cars, but any law attempting to close loopholes in the existing laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable must be nothing but a thin disguise to the path to total confiscation. Because guns are special, they are unlike anything else in the world where rational people can have rational discussions and come up with a rational policy to strike a balance between personal rights and public safety. |
|
|
|
07/20/2015 02:04:34 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
This is just another way to creep in with another law on the path to total confiscation. |
This attitude, that any law which tries to limit firearms deaths, is only a disguise in some sort of cabal to confiscate every gun owned by every American citizen, is a mantra I have heard all my life. It is a view held as gospel by extremist gun owners, yet it is a view frevently held without any factual base.
We can pass new tax laws without fear of the government seizing all our assets, we can pass new motor vehicle laws without fear of the government seizing all our cars, but any law attempting to close loopholes in the existing laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable must be nothing but a thin disguise to the path to total confiscation. Because guns are special, they are unlike anything else in the world where rational people can have rational discussions and come up with a rational policy to strike a balance between personal rights and public safety. |
That has already been happening.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2015 02:27:53 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
This is just another way to creep in with another law on the path to total confiscation. |
This attitude, that any law which tries to limit firearms deaths, is only a disguise in some sort of cabal to confiscate every gun owned by every American citizen, is a mantra I have heard all my life. It is a view held as gospel by extremist gun owners, yet it is a view frevently held without any factual base.
We can pass new tax laws without fear of the government seizing all our assets, we can pass new motor vehicle laws without fear of the government seizing all our cars, but any law attempting to close loopholes in the existing laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable must be nothing but a thin disguise to the path to total confiscation. Because guns are special, they are unlike anything else in the world where rational people can have rational discussions and come up with a rational policy to strike a balance between personal rights and public safety. |
That has already been happening. |
Could you expand on that a tad. I like to think that I am fairly well informed as it relates to changes, trends and major policy development in the USA and have heard of nothing that would support what you are advancing.
Maybe I missed it.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/20/2015 03:19:08 PM · #210 |
Here yago  RayEthier
IRS can seize assets (bank accounts) without charging the people with a crime. This is just one article. There are more
|
|
|
|
07/20/2015 03:50:38 PM · #211 |
| it actually does happen more than it should, which is never. |
|
|
|
07/20/2015 05:11:15 PM · #212 |
I just heard a really good quote that is very true.
Guns are a lot like parachutes, if you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again
|
|
|
|
07/20/2015 05:17:38 PM · #213 |
| I just heard a really good quote that is very true: "If your guns aren't securely locked up, then you're not a resposible gun owner. If they are locked up, then you aren't using them to defend anything." |
|
|
|
07/20/2015 06:55:58 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by Luciemac:
Wow. That's impressive. You're blaming someone else for your need to keep lethal weapons. How long do you have to be retired before you take responsibility? |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There really is no pleasing you is there.
Just so we understand each other very clearly, I owe you no explanation whatsoever as to why I do things. I am also quite capable of taking responsibility for things that I have done and comments that I have made... unlike you who seemingly believes that all who own guns are crazed killers.
I used to think only representatives of the NRA used indefensible comments when trying to defend their stances but it seems I was wrong in that regard.
Some people one can reason with... others not so much.
Have a nice day, Ray |
Edited and deleted as too combative....
Message edited by author 2015-07-20 21:02:58.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2015 11:20:09 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Another way the Obama administration is trying to outlaw guns. Taking baby steps to achieve the ultimate goal. |
[/quote]
Would you look at that? A FOX news link to how Obama wants to take yer gunz away, pardner! And, ya know you can always believe FOX News! Like this story fer instance.....and still out there posing as FACT! LOL!!
//www.foxnews.com/story/2001/12/26/report-bin-laden-already-dead.html |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 12:43:00 AM · #216 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I just heard a really good quote that is very true.
Guns are a lot like parachutes, if you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again |
There is another one "Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open." |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 05:22:36 AM · #217 |
| It seems to me (and I don't have stats to back this up) that the vast majority of times someone uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, nobody actually gets shot by said firearm. On the other hand, I'd expect that the majority of times someone breaks out a gun to DEFEND against someone using a firearm while committing a crime, someone WILL get shot, or at least shots will be fired. That has to be meaningful at some level. |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 06:27:05 AM · #218 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It seems to me (and I don't have stats to back this up) that the vast majority of times someone uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, nobody actually gets shot by said firearm. On the other hand, I'd expect that the majority of times someone breaks out a gun to DEFEND against someone using a firearm while committing a crime, someone WILL get shot, or at least shots will be fired. That has to be meaningful at some level. |
So, does that mean you'd like to see more or fewer guns around during the commission of a crime? If fewer, can we take yours away, or.....whose exactly? |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 06:59:33 AM · #219 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Here yago RayEthier
IRS can seize assets (bank accounts) without charging the people with a crime. This is just one article. There are more |
Interesting article my friend, but you might have missed the part that said: " the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by “exceptional circumstances.”
Seems you also neglected to take the following into consideration: "making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called structuring, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal sources"
Unless things are significantly different in the USA than they are here, things like warrants are also required before any agency can take your money, and if you can prove where the money came from, they will give it back to its' rightful owner.
Sorry my friend, but what you are advancing here is not the "Carte blanche" you are seemingly suggesting it is.
Here in Canada we have the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act which enables the government to seize funds under certain circumstances, and I for one happen to be very happy that it exists.
Perhaps you could list some other examples that we could look at.
Ray
Message edited by author 2015-07-21 07:00:45. |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 08:17:43 AM · #220 |
Ray
If someone commits a crime... i.e. money laundering There funds should be confiscated. But you need to charge them with a crime. There are a lot of businesses that do a mainly cash type of business. A lot of those places make deposits every day so they don't have a lot of cash on hand. So they end up depositing under $10,000.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2015 08:29:27 AM · #221 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Here yago RayEthier
IRS can seize assets (bank accounts) without charging the people with a crime. This is just one article. There are more |
Interesting article my friend, but you might have missed the part that said: " the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by “exceptional circumstances.”
Seems you also neglected to take the following into consideration: "making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called structuring, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal sources"
Unless things are significantly different in the USA than they are here, things like warrants are also required before any agency can take your money, and if you can prove where the money came from, they will give it back to its' rightful owner.
Sorry my friend, but what you are advancing here is not the "Carte blanche" you are seemingly suggesting it is.
Here in Canada we have the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act which enables the government to seize funds under certain circumstances, and I for one happen to be very happy that it exists.
Perhaps you could list some other examples that we could look at.
Ray |
Ray that isnt always the case.
If i get pulled over and the police search my vehicle, even if for some legitimate reason i have say $10,000 in cash in my car. if the police find it they will likely confiscate it by assuming I am going to use it as part of a an illegal transaction. they dont dont need a warrant and they dont have to give it back.
its a bullshit cash grab. if they gave it back after it was proven the money was for for some legit purpose I would be ok with it, but its not. they keep it and use it to supplement their police force.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2015 08:49:59 AM · #222 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Ray
If someone commits a crime... i.e. money laundering There funds should be confiscated. But you need to charge them with a crime. There are a lot of businesses that do a mainly cash type of business. A lot of those places make deposits every day so they don't have a lot of cash on hand. So they end up depositing under $10,000. |
Life is simple then. Make money, deposit it or keep records as to when and how you got it.
Problem solved.
You might also want to re-visit what I wrote in my previous submission regarding the changed to that process... it will make a difference.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 08:59:53 AM · #223 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Ray that isnt always the case.
If i get pulled over and the police search my vehicle, even if for some legitimate reason i have say $10,000 in cash in my car. if the police find it they will likely confiscate it by assuming I am going to use it as part of a an illegal transaction. they dont dont need a warrant and they dont have to give it back. |
I would not bet the house on this one, but unless I am very much mistaken (which has been known to happen), where you live the police can only do a warrantless search of your vehicle if three conditions are met, namely:
1. The stop of the vehicle must be unexpected.
2. There must be probable cause to believe that the vehicle has contraband or some other evidence of criminality, and
3. There must be exigent circumstances that would make it impractical to obtain a warrant.
Originally posted by Mike:
...its a bullshit cash grab. if they gave it back after it was proven the money was for for some legit purpose I would be ok with it, but its not. they keep it and use it to supplement their police force. |
As for this portion of your statement, I am not well versed enough with the multiple levels of laws that exist in the USA on this matter to provide any semblance of an informed rebuttal.
If indeed what you are advancing is correct, then it behooves all citizens to make formal complaints to their representatives and have the existing laws either modified or struck down.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 09:05:45 AM · #224 |
civil forfeiture
Justification
The Supreme Court has generally upheld the principle of civil forfeiture.
According to the Justice department, there are three main justifications for civil forfeitures:
Punishment and deterrence. To punish and deter criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used or acquired through illegal activities.[17]
Enhance police cooperation. To enhance cooperation among foreign, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, through the equitable sharing of assets recovered through this program.[17]
Revenue for law enforcement. As a byproduct, to produce revenues to enhance forfeitures and strengthen law enforcement.[17]
Since police can charge a person with a crime in a criminal case and charge his or her things in a civil case, issues such as double jeopardy have been raised. Further, there has been debate about whether seizures of property are considered as a fine or as a punishment in a legal sense. The distinction was clarified by the Supreme Court in United States v. Bajakajian, which decreed that a criminal forfeiture could be considered as both a type of fine and a punishment, while a civil forfeiture was not intended as a punishment of a person but rather a "legal fiction of punishing the property".[19] As a result, the court decreed that civil forfeitures were not considered as a type of fine.[19]
Generally the United States Supreme Court has upheld the principle of civil asset forfeiture.[7][20] In addition, there are more than 400 federal statutes which empower police to take assets from convicted criminals, as well as from persons not charged with criminality.[12] Sometimes the seizures happen as a result of different government agencies working together, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice.[21] Police at national and state levels cooperate in many instances according to procedural laws known as equitable sharing. In addition, there are laws which make it difficult for criminals to get dirty money clean by methods of money laundering; for example, law requires that cash deposits greater than $10,000 to a bank account be reported by the bank to the federal government,[22] and there have been instances in which repeated cash deposits under this amount have looked suspicious to authorities even though they were done legitimately, leading to civil forfeiture seizures directly from a bank account. What has caused controversy is when the property of innocent persons is seized by police who believe that the seized items were involved in criminal activity.
Message edited by author 2015-07-21 09:07:37. |
|
|
|
07/21/2015 09:07:56 AM · #225 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
2. There must be probable cause to believe that the vehicle has contraband or some other evidence of criminality, and
|
The problem with probable cause..... This is VERY loosely defined.
ok we've gotten off topic a bit. It seems that a few states are taking the initiative and arming the National Guard at recruiting facilities in the wake of that terrorist attack in Tennessee.
|
|
