Posted on 11/03/2010 8:48:59 PM PDT by Copernicus
If the shot had actually taken place, then should it have been illegal? Why? (It was obviously consensual, no threats were made.)
If it was "because it was dangerous" then shouldn't the same reasoning be applied to astronauts and race-car drivers to make those chosen professions illegal?
If it was "because it makes shooters/gun-advocates look bad," then I ask should Michael Moore's movies and writings be illegal because they make whites/Bush/conservatives/capitalism 'look bad' be illegal? If Michael Moore's expressions should be illegal because they make those things "look bad" then should Rush Limbaugh's expressions be made illegal because they make the liberals/MSM look bad?
If it's "because it was stupid" then why aren't high-schools illegal? They're pretty stupid [IMO], and seem determined to prove it [not opinion: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v6/f26/timss.html ]?
I have been taking a little grief over "voteNRA" and its well deserved. I am personally more in line with the GOA but "voteGOA" didn't seem as sexy as "voteNRA" back when I signed up. :)
Why does it have to be both stupid and illegal? I can't think of any obvious laws that were broken by the video - but it still sucks and shows poor judgment in real life.
That poor judgment is not illegal in any way and can be observed any day but still doesn't have to be promoted - at least not here.
I call BS for more reasons than I can count.
+1
I still think this is fake, not just stupid.
People not respecting firearms risks the rights of all of us.
In case you are not kidding:
When people post a dictionary definition to defend a point which normally has a specific (trade, industry, discipline) meaning - it’s usually an indication that they are intentionally cherry picking information that supports a weak position. I don’t object to any freeper using the appropriate definition for a topic - it doesn’t offend me and I haven’t violated anyone’s rights by doing so.
Mother & Child Knife Throwing Act
Best regards,
I'm not a "knife rights" guy but that cant make the case if I was!
This is getting stupid, just keep the knife and gun issues to stopping the bad guys and we will all be well!
Start using guns and knives as show props and we will fail.
That is as simple as it gets!
I don’t have a strong opinion about whether it’s legal or not - I agree that it is stupid.
The fact that it was consensual is not a defense as long as other consensual acts like assisted suicide or late term abortions are illegal.
The astronaut/race car driver defense it pretty weak too - comparing sporting events where a person (and maybe an insurance company) accepts responsibility for reasonable risk to their own life to ‘better mankind’ or ‘participate in a legal sport’ as opposed to person A shooting in the direction of person B.
I can’t imagine anyone arguing that ‘because it makes gun owners look bad’ would be a legitmate cause for this action to be illegal.
I can’t understand why you want to compare this reckless stunt with the existence of high schools so I’ll let that one go.
Generally, I think this sort of thing remains ‘legal but stupid’ until it begins to negatively impact society. For example, this guy is an amateur so it’s unclear if he knows enough to be doing this (even the pros make mistakes) and by putting it on the web, other young idiots with even less experience are likely to try it. Let’s say they don’t realize it’s a cherry bomb and they think it’s a real gunshot. And they have access to a weapon and a bike helmet and they want to do their own video for the web. It’s ‘attractive nuisance’ kind of thing that usually doesn’t rise to the level of illegal but soaks in the ‘stupid’ zone until people start accidentally shooting each other.
Even putting a cherry bomb on your head falls into this category - a bike helmet wasn’t designed to protect against explosives. In fact, I recall reading that some bike helmet designs are intended to break on impact (instead of your head) so if you do slam you’re head on the pavement you’re out a bike helmet (you broke it) but your skull didn’t crack. So I’d say the stunt is heavily into stupid territory.
Circus performers throw knives at each other or use a bow and arrow to shoot apples of each others heads so I am guessing this stunt is ‘legal-but-stupid’ in that a cherry bomb was intentionally exploded on the head of a person wearing a bike helmet in order to give viewers the impression it was a gunshot - and then other fools try the gun method...or the cherry bomb method.
>When people post a dictionary definition to defend a point which normally has a specific (trade, industry, discipline) meaning
You mean “jargon.”
>it’s usually an indication that they are intentionally cherry picking information that supports a weak position.
I wasn’t aware that firearms usage had a specialized word for “threaten.”
Something like “center-fire” is obviously ‘jargon,’ the ignorant would be justified in wondering if that meant something like “aiming center of mass” as the words ‘center’ and ‘fire’ don’t mean anything joined together. (Like ‘perimeter’ and ‘ice’ being co-joined.)
“Brandish,” however, has a dictionary meaning one that does not depend on a special subject or knowledge-base (ie technical jargon); furthermore, citing a “legal definition” is not always right: remember that congressional bill that defined ‘children’ as “being up to 26 years in age” or something similar? [I believe that it was “The Dream Act” or something.]
>I don’t object to any freeper using the appropriate definition for a topic - it doesn’t offend me and I haven’t violated anyone’s rights by doing so.
Ah, well thank you.
I’ve noticed I’ve been becoming a bit peculiar about definitions; mostly it seems to me [opinion/biased-perception & generalization here] that people don’t like definitions because definitions are absolute and not relative. If definitions are used then they open up the possibility that they can “lose the argument,” but by denying definitions they keep things in the realm of feelings where they can use visceral-reaction as a guide and they can say “well that’s just your opinion” to anything you present as evidence on your [argument’s] behalf.
In such a passion/emotion-driven world-view people can say something like “obeying the law is good!”
But if you “obey the law” by ignoring an invalid law that they happen to agree with then the “badness” you make them feel invalidates the “goodness” of ‘obey the law.’ (Gun laws are a PERFECT example; I live in a state where the State Constitution says “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense,” yet when I ignore the state law that prohibits firearms in schools I’m suddenly a “bad guy” because I’m “Breaking the law” on a law that is invalid anyway. I am ‘arrogant’ and ‘stubborn’ for ACTING on what I believe, promoting “putting guns into the hands of gangbangers” and so forth.)
You missed the point, which I admit I was rather circuitous in making.
The point is this: when did it become the government’s prerogative or obligation to take care of us in every aspect of our lives?
Was it with ObamaCare?
Was it with seatbelt laws?
When did life become a game of “Mother, ma I...” for anything you might want to do? {Hell, you can’t even build anything bigger/more-advanced than a tool-shed in my city w/o a construction permit... even if you wholly own the land.}
OneWingedShark, I like your name but I don’t have much fun chatting with you because your posts read like you are already offended before I respond. You tell me “I missed the point” but I didn’t. I just chatted around some topics you aired and I don’t have a strong opinion about it. You ask when it became the government’s perogative etc. as if I am suggesting it should be regulated - I am not. That issue of encroaching enforcement has been around a long long long time.
Seat belt laws reduced fatalities which reduced overall costs to society. Governments do that - they reduce costs to society. I’d say they don’t do that very well and I don’t like nanny laws. I didn’t mind helmet laws for motorcycles because they are on the road with me and if I hit one by accident - it matters to me whether I am charged with manslaughter or lesser charges. If a motorcyclist hits me - it matters to me whether a person dies lying over the hood of my car or not. I understand that a helmet does not guarantee survival or better outcomes but the data seems to suggest to me that it is worth it to have helmet laws and seatbelt laws.
But there are time when the area is gray. Some scary movie came out featuring teenagers running onto freeways and night and lying down in the path of cars but aligned with the lane so, according to the movie, the deisel drives right over the teen without striking them. Well, teens started doing that only the cars they chose to lie down in front of didn’t have the same clearance as the stunt vehicles used in the movies. Drivers were horrified to drive over and drag/kill teens and teens were shocked to learn that the stunt is harder than it looks. I believe that there was talk of laws being enacted then. Some were afraid that these were also nanny laws. I don’t know how that turned out.(I know in CA it’s illegal to cross a freeway on foot now but it is still legal to cross a highway on foot.)
I think the decisions are sometimes harder than they look because costs to society are not always apparent. If that stunt were actually performed with a live gun, then where does the bullet travel after it passes through the watermelon (the neighbors will be surprised to know) I agree we have too many laws but I don’t think that I’ve read of a good ‘rule of thumb’ to use when deciding when a law is excessive - there must be one that lawyers use. Any lawyers out there?
I'm sorry about that. I will admit that I am quite angry over the law, not because it is inherently bad -- just the opposite it is inherently good, and that is probably why so many want to expand it -- but because of how it is used: like a club. The law-maker lays out many, many heavy/difficult burdens without giving a single thought to the people he is laying them on... and then, when someone stumbles under the staggering weight is is not because the load was too heavy, no -- it's his fault for not being strong enough!
In my own life I have been beaten again and again and again with 'laws' and 'regulations.' I have been utterly dismissed, not because my arguments were invalid, or because reasoning was flawed, but by things like "you attitude is wrong" ('wrong' apparently meaning "not wholly and completely perfect").
What I'm trying to say would be analogous to your church saying "you aren't Jesus!" when you stand up and say that something is wrong... as if your own imperfections/limitations automatically invalidate ANY sort of moral sensibilities you might have.
You tell me “I missed the point” but I didn’t. I just chatted around some topics you aired and I don’t have a strong opinion about it. You ask when it became the government’s perogative etc. as if I am suggesting it should be regulated - I am not. That issue of encroaching enforcement has been around a long long long time.
I see.
Seat belt laws reduced fatalities which reduced overall costs to society. Governments do that - they reduce costs to society. I’d say they don’t do that very well and I don’t like nanny laws. I didn’t mind helmet laws for motorcycles because they are on the road with me and if I hit one by accident - it matters to me whether I am charged with manslaughter or lesser charges.
On the severity-of-charges note; have you ever read Three Felonies a Day? It's amazing what little "getting on with life" activities can be made into felonies *right now*.
If a motorcyclist hits me - it matters to me whether a person dies lying over the hood of my car or not. I understand that a helmet does not guarantee survival or better outcomes but the data seems to suggest to me that it is worth it to have helmet laws and seatbelt laws.
But why should it be the government that "shows [your] concern" by mandating the motorcyclist wear a helmet? How is that any different than the Government "Sharing Brady's Concern" by outlawing 'assault weapons'? The two aren't directly related except in this: neither you want the motorcyclest to die nor does the person defending his home *want* to kill the intruder. In both cases you or the homeowner would have rather not had such an incident at all, right?
But there are time when the area is gray. Some scary movie came out featuring teenagers running onto freeways and night and lying down in the path of cars but aligned with the lane so, according to the movie, the deisel drives right over the teen without striking them. Well, teens started doing that only the cars they chose to lie down in front of didn’t have the same clearance as the stunt vehicles used in the movies. Drivers were horrified to drive over and drag/kill teens and teens were shocked to learn that the stunt is harder than it looks. I believe that there was talk of laws being enacted then. Some were afraid that these were also nanny laws.
I agree we have too many laws but I don’t think that I’ve read of a good ‘rule of thumb’ to use when deciding when a law is excessive - there must be one that lawyers use. Any lawyers out there?
The problem with any "rule of thumb" or even definition about the excessiveness of laws is that that definition itself would then become distorted and diminished as time went on. Another is that words themselves develop connotations that are not, strictly speaking, part of the definition. A good example would be the word "Humanism," here's the definition:
Humanism –noun
1. any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.
2. devotion to or study of the humanities.
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the studies, principles, or culture of the humanists.
4. Philosophy. a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in god.
As we can see, the connotation "godless" that it has picked up is mentioned [as possible] but not actually necessary.
Reckless endangerment. But I think that we would be better if if the shooter had hit the guy. Two idiots taken out of the general society at once.
Second law of firearms safety : never let the muzzle cover anything that you aren’t willing to see get destroyed.
The sh*thead who is doing the shooting is willfully violating this rule .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.