Asset forfeture without having been convicted of a crime is another unjust law. It’s a way for locals to raise funds, but it’s simply wrong, and unjust.[/quote]
I forgot about these, since I mostly associate them with drug laws. However, they also come into play in tax situations. Plus, you have your “constructive seizure” cases, in which government regulators come in and tell you something like “Your property is a wetland because it had a puddle once, so you can’t build anything on it” or “There is some endangered amoeba in the soil on your property, so you must not build on it or use it in any other way.” In addition to destroying the property owner’s enjoyment value, these types of things also destroy re-sale value.
All very bad. The constructive seizure cases get tricky, because if you push too hard in the other direction you would go too far in impinging governmental ability to act, but we are clearly on the other end of that extreme at the moment.
[quote]doogie wrote:
He was a college student, drunk off his ass banging loudly on the door and trying to force his way into what he thought was his friends house in the middle of the night, not a little kid asking if Johnny can come out and play.
[/quote]
That still doesn’t justify killing someone unless he was armed.
[quote]conorh wrote:
Being brought up in the hills and hollers of the Ozark’s hunting, fishing, working cows and generally doing what hillbillies do, the anti gun issue is close to my heart. Not to mention my extreme Libertarian bend… So I’m going to kick this dead horse just once.
I don’t understand the opposition to guns. If I go out and kill someone with a brick are we going to outlaw bricks? Motor vehicles undeniably kill more people than guns do, yet we have no problem allowing every 16 year old who can pass a laughable written test to pilot one.
It seems people are afraid of violence, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. Violent acts perpetrated by responsible and thoughtful human beings have contributed immensely to mankind; wars of revolution including our own, and the innumerable acts of police and other armed citizen responders are part and parcel of maintaining the peace. Violence is an inseparable part of existence.
As our society pacifies we become more and more unwilling to take a hard line, to stand up for anything. Perhaps it’s not having to kill our even work for our food, but we are denying our nature as biological consumers. It seems liberals want some sort of touchy feely fantasy land where no one ever hurts anything and we all shit gold nuggets and fly on rainbows. It ain?t gonna happen.
We should all have the ability to reasonably protect our lives and health and our livelihood and property with deadly force, namely the right to be armed. Obviously those who have proven themselves to be irresponsible should not; felons, mental patients etc. Minors should not be able to purchase arms but should be able to keep them under the guidance of an adult.
Lastly, the argument that the closing quarter of the 18th century was a rougher time and we no longer need to bear arms doesn’t fly with me. When we formed this union there were no prohibitions on the arms one could buy or trade. Our government vested in us the right to own the most powerful weapons on the face of the earth. If that isn’t a clear vote for our individual sovereignty and personal responsibility, I don’t know what is.
[/quote]
One of the finest pro-gun posts that I have read on this forum in a long time!
Heroin is illegal, but that doesn?t get in the way of someone determined to use it. So why would simply making guns illegal stop criminals who want them from getting them? Stringent gun laws make it difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms. But criminals, by their very nature, couldn?t care less what the law says to begin with. Criminals who use guns should have the book thrown at them. Parents who leave loaded guns lying around where their little children can get at them should have the book thrown at them. Responsible gun owners should not be punished for others criminality and negligence.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That still doesn’t justify killing someone unless he was armed.
[/quote]
In Louisianna and Texas it sure does. How does some old lady tell the difference in the middle of the night between a home invasion and a drunk college student trying to force his way into her house. In Texas you have an absolute right to defend your property (including your car in the driveway). No duty to retreat.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
He was a college student, drunk off his ass banging loudly on the door and trying to force his way into what he thought was his friends house in the middle of the night, not a little kid asking if Johnny can come out and play.
That still doesn’t justify killing someone unless he was armed.
[/quote]
Is that right Professor? If someone has his hands around your loved ones throat and you can’t get to him in time, you wouldn’t shoot him?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Is that right Professor? If someone has his hands around your loved ones throat and you can’t get to him in time, you wouldn’t shoot him?
[/quote]
Is that the situation here? Was this man’s hand around someone’s neck…or was he outside and banging on the door? Is banging on someone’s door worthy of getting them killed? Why not the thought that the police should be called if they were truly worried?
You are comparing apples to oranges. If me or someone I know is at risk or their life is in danger, I have the responsibility to act. If someone is banging on my door and I don’t know them, my first instinct is not “kill the son of a bitch”. If anything, I could understand wounding him in the knee, but death? No wonder you don’t give a shit about people who file bankruptcy in dire medical situations.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Is banging on someone’s door worthy of getting them killed? Why not the thought that the police should be called if they were truly worried?
You are comparing apples to oranges. If me or someone I know is at risk or their life is in danger, I have the responsibility to act. If someone is banging on my door and I don’t know them, my first instinct is not “kill the son of a bitch”. If anything, I could understand wounding him in the knee, but death? No wonder you don’t give a shit about people who file bankruptcy in dire medical situations.
[/quote]
I think you are doing you own fair share of embellishing here. I think there was more to the story than just beating on the door. I can’t recall the whole story, however.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Plus, you have your “constructive seizure” cases, in which government regulators come in and tell you something like “Your property is a wetland because it had a puddle once, so you can’t build anything on it”[/quote]
Didn’t the Supreme Court declare those practices unconstitutional, saying that the EPA et al. could exercise eminent domain, but were required to pay fair market value?
A lot of people make the argument that “guns are bad and kill innocent people, therefore we should make them illegal” right? Because society would be safer without them.
However, if you really look at the issue, you realize:
Making guns illegal takes them out of the hands of responsible citizens which means they can’t protect themselves. And the criminal who’s just going to obtain his gun illegally anyway will not only still have a gun but have all the more power because there is less opposition.
Bad people will get their gun regardless of some law. So society is no better off with a law against gun ownership. Actually it’s even worse off.
All of the above is basically correct, you agree with it, right?
Eminent domain laws that allow the government purchase (i.e. confiscation) of private property for subsequent sale to developers who will build properties that generate grater tax revenues for said government.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Plus, you have your “constructive seizure” cases, in which government regulators come in and tell you something like “Your property is a wetland because it had a puddle once, so you can’t build anything on it”
Didn’t the Supreme Court declare those practices unconstitutional, saying that the EPA et al. could exercise imminent domain, but were required to pay fair market value?[/quote]
I don’t think so, but I’m going on memory.
I think the USSC ruled that the so-called regulatory takings were legal – though there might be a small caveat for how far the agencies can take it. If I remember correctly, Scalia had a blistering dissent.
On the other hand, I think there was a case that negated a practice of local governments of explicitly requiring landowners to give land for bikepaths, parks, etc. in exchange for regulatory and zoning approval. So now they come up with other reasons and the developers “volunteer” to give up land for parks, bike paths, etc.
I think you are doing you own fair share of embellishing here. I think there was more to the story than just beating on the door. I can’t recall the whole story, however.
[/quote]
I am only going off of what I read from another poster. I never heard of this story. If the guy was breaking into their house, that is a different situation. Being drunk and banging on someone’s door are not reasons to shoot anyone. In my old neighborhood, we had one drunk guy walk into our house becaue he thought it was his. He was ready to sit down before my dad nearly knocked him out. If this guy didn’t break in, I don’t see why he was shot. I haven’t embellished anything at all.
[quote]bandgeek wrote:
Eminent domain laws that allow the government purchase (i.e. confiscation) of private property for subsequent sale to developers who will build properties that generate grater tax revenues for said government.[/quote]
Why use a needlessly complex government process to encourage growth? Why is it better for a government to acquire a property and sell it to developers than to simply allow the sale to go on privately? The former puts money into the municipality’s pocket, whereas the latter puts it in a private citizen’s, in theory anyway. Why does the government need more funds? To promote more socialist public projects…
The idea of eminent domain as a means of encouraging growth has yucky socialist overtones. The role of local governmentregarding economic stimulus is to not discourage free trade, or rarely encourage it where it can be done without oppressive legislation. Even then, I believe non government entities, like chamber’s of commerce can lobby effectively to encourage free trade, i.e. demand improved telephone service, lobby against unfavorable highway route changes, etc. Both of those are issues that are badly needed in the small town I grew up in.
[quote]NateN wrote:
I’ve got a question for Zeb specifically:
A lot of people make the argument that “guns are bad and kill innocent people, therefore we should make them illegal” right? Because society would be safer without them.
However, if you really look at the issue, you realize:
Making guns illegal takes them out of the hands of responsible citizens which means they can’t protect themselves. And the criminal who’s just going to obtain his gun illegally anyway will not only still have a gun but have all the more power because there is less opposition.
Bad people will get their gun regardless of some law. So society is no better off with a law against gun ownership. Actually it’s even worse off.
All of the above is basically correct, you agree with it, right?
I have a follow-up question…[/quote]
I’d have to say that is not true.
(first of excuse my grammar)
I live in Denmark, a country with a population of 5 million people. You have to own a license for hunting og a professional sport to be able to own a gun in Denmark.
The only shootings we hear of - a couple of times a month maybe, at the most - are related to people who own hunting rifles or (the odd case) when organised criminals have to “sort out there business arrangements”.
Danish policeofficers rarely if ever have to draw there gun in Denmark and it’s years between news of people being shot by the police. It’s simply not nescessary here.
If there’s no guns there’s no need for a gun to protect yourself.
Eminent Domain is an issue here in South Florida. Bandgeek, do you happen to live in Riviera Beach?
In response to an earlier post, from what I understand, government steps in when individuals will not necessarily sell to the developers.
This is a tough issue, if the government doesn’t step in the property owners may become the victim of many different kinds of attacks from the developer and might end up worse off. Definitely a two edged issue.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Is that right Professor? If someone has his hands around your loved ones throat and you can’t get to him in time, you wouldn’t shoot him?
Is that the situation here? Was this man’s hand around someone’s neck…or was he outside and banging on the door? Is banging on someone’s door worthy of getting them killed? Why not the thought that the police should be called if they were truly worried?
You are comparing apples to oranges. If me or someone I know is at risk or their life is in danger, I have the responsibility to act. If someone is banging on my door and I don’t know them, my first instinct is not “kill the son of a bitch”. If anything, I could understand wounding him in the knee, but death? No wonder you don’t give a shit about people who file bankruptcy in dire medical situations.
[/quote]
You stated:
“that still doesn’t justify killing someone unless he was armed.”
I merely called you on that statement! I see you have backed away from it now. I’m glad that you see you are wrong.
As to your low blow (one of many you throw at those who best you on this board))regarding me not caring about those who file bankruptcy in dire medical situations. I would like you to review exactly where I posted such a statement. The fact is I didn’t!
In fact, I stated something on the order that there are exceptions to every rule. I even stated that I was sorry to hear about your grandmother.
Maybe you should consider taking the high road in some of these debates, for a change.
[quote]NateN wrote:
I’ve got a question for Zeb specifically:
A lot of people make the argument that “guns are bad and kill innocent people, therefore we should make them illegal” right? Because society would be safer without them.
However, if you really look at the issue, you realize:
Making guns illegal takes them out of the hands of responsible citizens which means they can’t protect themselves. And the criminal who’s just going to obtain his gun illegally anyway will not only still have a gun but have all the more power because there is less opposition.
Bad people will get their gun regardless of some law. So society is no better off with a law against gun ownership. Actually it’s even worse off.
All of the above is basically correct, you agree with it, right?
I have a follow-up question…[/quote]
I agree that most citizens (who qualify) should be allowed to possess a handgun.
