(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

To answer your question, I would say the appropriate punishment is whatever laws apply in his particular jurisdiction, although depending on the jurisdiction, they could be harsh, lax or non-existent.

If you just want to know my opinion, beyond the applicable laws which should always be followed, I would say nothing.

He lost his job, scared the crap out of himself, and humiliated himself on the internet, in a way that will never be deleted. I would say that's sufficient punishment for the first offense. But he did get lucky.

To put it in proper perspective, have you ever driven a car and turned the wrong way on a one way street, or pulled out in front of somebody and almost caused a crash? Or didn't stop in time and almost hit a pedestrian? Or ran a yellow light b/c you didn't want to wait? Or any other of a multitude of stupid things that drivers do every day that are dangerous, but luckily don't result in any harm to anyone?

Should each and every one of those instances be reported, with the guilty driver losing his license forever? I don't think anybody would say that.

If the answer is no, then the answer should be the same for an idiot who mishandles a gun that doesn't harm anyone or break any laws.

Problem is, people who are uncomfortable with the idea of guns always seem interested in taking away guns from people, while they never give a second thought to doing the same for dumb*** drivers, who are way more prevalent, and thus more dangerous.

Now, if the guy is a dangerous schizophrenic who owns firearms, yeah, I think maybe he should be considered to have his guns taken, but even then, who makes that decision? What are the specific criteria?

I don't trust anti-gun politicians to be fair, if they have that law as a weapon.

If a person makes specific threats about doing harm to people, yeah, maybe, if he was serious.

If he's a felon, sure.

But let's don't treat gun owners any more or less fairly than anybody else who does stupid crap that could endanger people, but actually causes no harm. And certainly don't take guns away from people b/c somebody THINKS they are irresponsible, as you seem to feel toward some.

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

I'd prefer not live around people that dont have the ability to defend themselves. Should there be a fine?

A jail fine for misfiring a weapon on ones on property. Lol

Nah. No more than for one being a cuck in ones own house.

Damn Stalin.

(03-07-2020 04:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

I'd prefer not live around people that dont have the ability to defend themselves. Should there be a fine?

A jail fine for misfiring a weapon on ones on property. Lol

Nah. No more than for one being a cuck in ones own house.

Damn Stalin.

Funny you mention that. Kennesaw, Georgia passed an ordinance in the 1980s requiring every head of household to buy and possess a gun for self defense (with generous exceptions for illness, poverty, religion, etc.)

Afaik, that law is still in effect, although not enforced. And crime there isn't really enough to measure if the law helped or not, but I know if I was a burglar, I would pick a different town, lol.

(03-07-2020 04:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

I'd prefer not live around people that dont have the ability to defend themselves. Should there be a fine?

A jail fine for misfiring a weapon on ones on property. Lol

Nah. No more than for one being a cuck in ones own house.

Damn Stalin.

Triple A, thanks for your response. You make very good points.

shere khan, you don't. At least not any points that I can follow.

How does my discomfort with guns put you or your property in jeopardy? I'm sure that there are any number of reasons that you'd find me to be a distasteful neighbor, but irresponsible gun handling will not be one of them. Trigger-Happy Trevor, on the other hand, and many more like him, are much more likely to do harm or damage to others than they are likely to be able to defend themselves.

I'm against the confiscatory gun policies that are all the rage in Virginia, now that Gov. Coonman is trying to suck up to the left who will forgive virtually anything from a compliant politician. But when I see posts like yours it reminds me that there are still plenty of mindless attitudes on the right.

And it causes me to question some of the other points from more levelheaded posters that I otherwise might have found persuasive.

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

If someone heard it and reported and if he lives in a city or town that has a law banning shooting a gun within the city/town limits and it could be proved he did it then he could be charged with discharging a firearm inside the city/town limits and face whatever consequences the law provides for. The flip side of that is that anyone could claim he discharged a firearm for whatever purposes, legitimate or otherwise, and he could be unjustly accused and found guilty.

I have accidentally discharged a weapon long before I took it upon myself to become a responsible and safe gun owner so I can't agree with your remedy for the second question you asked. You cannot just arbitrarily deprive anyone of their constitutionally protected rights. Consider the hypothetical question of the 1st Amendment issue of someone yelling fire in a crowded theater when no such fire existed. Should that person be stripped of his 1st Amendment rights?

I can think of no other right enshrined in the BOR's that can be taken away except the right to legally own a weapon or the right to vote for being convicted of and serving time for a felony. There are no cities or towns I know of where discharging a firearm is a felony. I could be wrong.

(03-07-2020 04:48 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 04:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

I'd prefer not live around people that dont have the ability to defend themselves. Should there be a fine?

A jail fine for misfiring a weapon on ones on property. Lol

Nah. No more than for one being a cuck in ones own house.

Damn Stalin.

Funny you mention that. Kennesaw, Georgia passed an ordinance in the 1980s requiring every head of household to buy and possess a gun for self defense (with generous exceptions for illness, poverty, religion, etc.)

Afaik, that law is still in effect, although not enforced. And crime there isn't really enough to measure if the law helped or not, but I know if I was a burglar, I would pick a different town, lol.

I lived in Kennesaw when that ordinance was passed. It was their response to the town of Marion Illinois passing an ordinance forbidding guns in homes, or so the story goes. As you said it was not enforced as it was largely symbolic.

(03-07-2020 05:29 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 04:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

I'd prefer not live around people that dont have the ability to defend themselves. Should there be a fine?

A jail fine for misfiring a weapon on ones on property. Lol

Nah. No more than for one being a cuck in ones own house.

Damn Stalin.

Triple A, thanks for your response. You make very good points.

shere khan, you don't. At least not any points that I can follow.

How does my discomfort with guns put you or your property in jeopardy? I'm sure that there are any number of reasons that you'd find me to be a distasteful neighbor, but irresponsible gun handling will not be one of them. Trigger-Happy Trevor, on the other hand, and many more like him, are much more likely to do harm or damage to others than they are likely to be able to defend themselves.

I'm against the confiscatory gun policies that are all the rage in Virginia, now that Gov. Coonman is trying to suck up to the left who will forgive virtually anything from a compliant politician. But when I see posts like yours it reminds me that there are still plenty of mindless attitudes on the right.

And it causes me to question some of the other points from more levelheaded posters that I otherwise might have found persuasive.

Since when does your discomfort pass as a reason to revoke someones legal rights? No disrespect intended but that's a ridiculous and dangerous line of thought. Having said that it's not irrational for you to be uncomfortable if you were involved in such a situation as a neighbor or even an innocent bystander so I can appreciate your uneasiness.

(03-07-2020 06:00 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 05:29 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 04:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

I'd prefer not live around people that dont have the ability to defend themselves. Should there be a fine?

A jail fine for misfiring a weapon on ones on property. Lol

Nah. No more than for one being a cuck in ones own house.

Damn Stalin.

Triple A, thanks for your response. You make very good points.

shere khan, you don't. At least not any points that I can follow.

How does my discomfort with guns put you or your property in jeopardy? I'm sure that there are any number of reasons that you'd find me to be a distasteful neighbor, but irresponsible gun handling will not be one of them. Trigger-Happy Trevor, on the other hand, and many more like him, are much more likely to do harm or damage to others than they are likely to be able to defend themselves.

I'm against the confiscatory gun policies that are all the rage in Virginia, now that Gov. Coonman is trying to suck up to the left who will forgive virtually anything from a compliant politician. But when I see posts like yours it reminds me that there are still plenty of mindless attitudes on the right.

And it causes me to question some of the other points from more levelheaded posters that I otherwise might have found persuasive.

Since when does your discomfort pass as a reason to revoke someones legal rights? No disrespect intended but that's a ridiculous and dangerous line of thought. Having said that it's not irrational for you to be uncomfortable if you were involved in such a situation as a neighbor or even an innocent bystander so I can appreciate your uneasiness.

No disrepect perceived. I realize that I am taking a disfavored position.

My own discomfort, by itself, is absolutely inadequate as a basis to deprive Trevor of his right to bear arms. But it does not stand alone. We have video of a very drunk doofus mishandling a very dangerous weapon. Is that not sufficient?

How about the clowns at the other end of my neighborhood, who have been known at the end of a drunken evening to pop off a few rounds across the Lafayette River. If I ran the world, that would be grounds for confiscation.

Happily for most everyone else on this board, I do not run the world (or, frankly, even my own household).

(03-07-2020 06:59 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 06:00 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 05:29 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 04:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

I'd prefer not live around people that dont have the ability to defend themselves. Should there be a fine?

A jail fine for misfiring a weapon on ones on property. Lol

Nah. No more than for one being a cuck in ones own house.

Damn Stalin.

Triple A, thanks for your response. You make very good points.

shere khan, you don't. At least not any points that I can follow.

How does my discomfort with guns put you or your property in jeopardy? I'm sure that there are any number of reasons that you'd find me to be a distasteful neighbor, but irresponsible gun handling will not be one of them. Trigger-Happy Trevor, on the other hand, and many more like him, are much more likely to do harm or damage to others than they are likely to be able to defend themselves.

I'm against the confiscatory gun policies that are all the rage in Virginia, now that Gov. Coonman is trying to suck up to the left who will forgive virtually anything from a compliant politician. But when I see posts like yours it reminds me that there are still plenty of mindless attitudes on the right.

And it causes me to question some of the other points from more levelheaded posters that I otherwise might have found persuasive.

Since when does your discomfort pass as a reason to revoke someones legal rights? No disrespect intended but that's a ridiculous and dangerous line of thought. Having said that it's not irrational for you to be uncomfortable if you were involved in such a situation as a neighbor or even an innocent bystander so I can appreciate your uneasiness.

No disrepect perceived. I realize that I am taking a disfavored position.

My own discomfort, by itself, is absolutely inadequate as a basis to deprive Trevor of his right to bear arms. But it does not stand alone. We have video of a very drunk doofus mishandling a very dangerous weapon. Is that not sufficient?

How about the clowns at the other end of my neighborhood, who have been known at the end of a drunken evening to pop off a few rounds across the Lafayette River. If I ran the world, that would be grounds for confiscation.

Happily for most everyone else on this board, I do not run the world (or, frankly, even my own household).

LOL, I'm with you on the last 6 words.

As for the rest, I repeat, if you confiscate people's guns for irresponsibly discharging a weapon that doesn't cause harm, then, by your logic, you would also need to confiscate people's cars every time they run a red light.

Not to mention, the right to own a firearm is a constitutional right. Owning a car is not.

With all due respect, your attitude is exactly why gun rights advocates have a hard time agreeing to any concessions to the gun control crowd, b/c we feel the only thing that really makes gun control advocates 100% happy and comfortable would be if all guns were confiscated, ala Eric Swalwell's proposal. And others...

An interesting discussion. We absolutely strip felons of their 2A rights, and oftentimes their right to vote. I understand the logic of both of those, but we never strip them of 1A rights; heck, we give Korans to terror scum in Guantanamo. I feel ok with the 2A and voting rights restrictions because they 1) make me feel safer and 2) help my political aims. I'm not sure that's right, Constitutionally and morally speaking. But we also restrict 4th A rights for people on bail/parole. It seems like it should be consistent across the board

(03-07-2020 09:53 PM)VCE Wrote:  An interesting discussion. We absolutely strip felons of their 2A rights, and oftentimes their right to vote. I understand the logic of both of those, but we never strip them of 1A rights; heck, we give Korans to terror scum in Guantanamo. I feel ok with the 2A and voting rights restrictions because they 1) make me feel safer and 2) help my political aims. I'm not sure that's right, Constitutionally and morally speaking. But we also restrict 4th A rights for people on bail/parole. It seems like it should be consistent across the board

But we're not talking about a felony in this debate. We're talking about accidentally discharging a firearm on your own property, with no harm. Afaik, that's not a felony anywhere, and maybe a misdemeanor in some places.

(03-07-2020 06:00 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 05:29 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 04:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

I'd prefer not live around people that dont have the ability to defend themselves. Should there be a fine?

A jail fine for misfiring a weapon on ones on property. Lol

Nah. No more than for one being a cuck in ones own house.

Damn Stalin.

Triple A, thanks for your response. You make very good points.

shere khan, you don't. At least not any points that I can follow.

How does my discomfort with guns put you or your property in jeopardy? I'm sure that there are any number of reasons that you'd find me to be a distasteful neighbor, but irresponsible gun handling will not be one of them. Trigger-Happy Trevor, on the other hand, and many more like him, are much more likely to do harm or damage to others than they are likely to be able to defend themselves.

I'm against the confiscatory gun policies that are all the rage in Virginia, now that Gov. Coonman is trying to suck up to the left who will forgive virtually anything from a compliant politician. But when I see posts like yours it reminds me that there are still plenty of mindless attitudes on the right.

And it causes me to question some of the other points from more levelheaded posters that I otherwise might have found persuasive.

Since when does your discomfort pass as a reason to revoke someones legal rights? No disrespect intended but that's a ridiculous and dangerous line of thought. Having said that it's not irrational for you to be uncomfortable if you were involved in such a situation as a neighbor or even an innocent bystander so I can appreciate your uneasiness.

Nicer way of saying what I meant. I gotta quit being such a smartarse.

People that are irresponsible with chainsaws as neighbors frighten me worse than those that can fire small projectiles. Now that's a law I could get behind. Sensible chainsaw laws.

Dumb frickers.

(03-07-2020 10:46 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 06:00 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 05:29 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 04:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

I'd prefer not live around people that dont have the ability to defend themselves. Should there be a fine?

A jail fine for misfiring a weapon on ones on property. Lol

Nah. No more than for one being a cuck in ones own house.

Damn Stalin.

Triple A, thanks for your response. You make very good points.

shere khan, you don't. At least not any points that I can follow.

How does my discomfort with guns put you or your property in jeopardy? I'm sure that there are any number of reasons that you'd find me to be a distasteful neighbor, but irresponsible gun handling will not be one of them. Trigger-Happy Trevor, on the other hand, and many more like him, are much more likely to do harm or damage to others than they are likely to be able to defend themselves.

I'm against the confiscatory gun policies that are all the rage in Virginia, now that Gov. Coonman is trying to suck up to the left who will forgive virtually anything from a compliant politician. But when I see posts like yours it reminds me that there are still plenty of mindless attitudes on the right.

And it causes me to question some of the other points from more levelheaded posters that I otherwise might have found persuasive.

Since when does your discomfort pass as a reason to revoke someones legal rights? No disrespect intended but that's a ridiculous and dangerous line of thought. Having said that it's not irrational for you to be uncomfortable if you were involved in such a situation as a neighbor or even an innocent bystander so I can appreciate your uneasiness.

Nicer way of saying what I meant. I gotta quit being such a smartarse.

Not unless you can alter your DNA, lol.

(03-06-2020 09:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I posted this in the Rep. Ken Buck Weapons thread, but maybe it was buried, and got no reaction.

Check this out. A gaming podcast dude, who works for Soar, is streaming live at home while drinking. Watch what happens. He was fired a few hours later.

WARNING: Audio NSFW!!!

(03-07-2020 10:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 09:53 PM)VCE Wrote:  An interesting discussion. We absolutely strip felons of their 2A rights, and oftentimes their right to vote. I understand the logic of both of those, but we never strip them of 1A rights; heck, we give Korans to terror scum in Guantanamo. I feel ok with the 2A and voting rights restrictions because they 1) make me feel safer and 2) help my political aims. I'm not sure that's right, Constitutionally and morally speaking. But we also restrict 4th A rights for people on bail/parole. It seems like it should be consistent across the board

But we're not talking about a felony in this debate. We're talking about accidentally discharging a firearm on your own property, with no harm. Afaik, that's not a felony anywhere, and maybe a misdemeanor in some places.

i believe it's a felony in my state of CO

Quote:Any person who knowingly or recklessly discharges a firearm into any dwelling or any other building or occupied structure, or into any motor vehicle occupied by any person, commits the offense of illegal discharge of a firearm.

"A person acts “knowingly” with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. A person acts “knowingly” with respect to a result of his conduct, when he is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause the result.1

A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists.2"

https://www.shouselaw.com/colorado/weapo...harge.html

and almost certainly in many other states. Being inebriated usually qualifies the "reckless" part of the statute

(03-07-2020 10:46 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 06:00 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 05:29 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 04:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 02:56 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  I own no guns. I like to think of myself as a responsible person, but I have enough self-awareness and honesty to know that I have done my share of stupid things in my life. I would never want the consequences of a stupid moment with a firearm to be on my conscience.

So here's my question for those of you who are comfortable with your own gun ownership: what is the appropriate legal consequence for this moron (assuming the only resulting damage was a busted coffee cup and a bullet hole through his own wall)? Nothing beyond the deep sadness he now feels for the loss of his streaming privileges? A fine? Probation? Actual jail time?

Or can we agree that we have a sufficient predicate to deprive this twerp of his 2nd Amendment rights and declare a vested state interest in not permitting him to ever again own a gun?

This is a sincere question, given that he does not appear to me to be any different than countless others. I've got more than a few neighbors who could be this guy's alter ego. I'd prefer not to come out one morning to find a bullet hole in the side of my house.

I'd prefer not live around people that dont have the ability to defend themselves. Should there be a fine?

A jail fine for misfiring a weapon on ones on property. Lol

Nah. No more than for one being a cuck in ones own house.

Damn Stalin.

Triple A, thanks for your response. You make very good points.

shere khan, you don't. At least not any points that I can follow.

How does my discomfort with guns put you or your property in jeopardy? I'm sure that there are any number of reasons that you'd find me to be a distasteful neighbor, but irresponsible gun handling will not be one of them. Trigger-Happy Trevor, on the other hand, and many more like him, are much more likely to do harm or damage to others than they are likely to be able to defend themselves.

I'm against the confiscatory gun policies that are all the rage in Virginia, now that Gov. Coonman is trying to suck up to the left who will forgive virtually anything from a compliant politician. But when I see posts like yours it reminds me that there are still plenty of mindless attitudes on the right.

And it causes me to question some of the other points from more levelheaded posters that I otherwise might have found persuasive.

Since when does your discomfort pass as a reason to revoke someones legal rights? No disrespect intended but that's a ridiculous and dangerous line of thought. Having said that it's not irrational for you to be uncomfortable if you were involved in such a situation as a neighbor or even an innocent bystander so I can appreciate your uneasiness.

Nicer way of saying what I meant. I gotta quit being such a smartarse.

People that are irresponsible with chainsaws as neighbors frighten me worse than those that can fire small projectiles. Now that's a law I could get behind. Sensible chainsaw laws.

Dumb frickers.

if you did that, I'd ban yo' arse....and I'm not a mod...

(03-07-2020 10:57 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I posted this in the Rep. Ken Buck Weapons thread, but maybe it was buried, and got no reaction.

Check this out. A gaming podcast dude, who works for Soar, is streaming live at home while drinking. Watch what happens. He was fired a few hours later.

WARNING: Audio NSFW!!!

(03-07-2020 10:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 09:53 PM)VCE Wrote:  An interesting discussion. We absolutely strip felons of their 2A rights, and oftentimes their right to vote. I understand the logic of both of those, but we never strip them of 1A rights; heck, we give Korans to terror scum in Guantanamo. I feel ok with the 2A and voting rights restrictions because they 1) make me feel safer and 2) help my political aims. I'm not sure that's right, Constitutionally and morally speaking. But we also restrict 4th A rights for people on bail/parole. It seems like it should be consistent across the board

But we're not talking about a felony in this debate. We're talking about accidentally discharging a firearm on your own property, with no harm. Afaik, that's not a felony anywhere, and maybe a misdemeanor in some places.

i believe it's a felony in my state of CO

Quote:Any person who knowingly or recklessly discharges a firearm into any dwelling or any other building or occupied structure, or into any motor vehicle occupied by any person, commits the offense of illegal discharge of a firearm.

"A person acts “knowingly” with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. A person acts “knowingly” with respect to a result of his conduct, when he is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause the result.1

A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists.2"

https://www.shouselaw.com/colorado/weapo...harge.html

and almost certainly in many other states. Being inebriated usually qualifies the "reckless" part of the statute

I looked it up. It is a felony in Colorado. A conviction would mean they can take his guns. Okay by me. Felons can't have guns. They give up their 2A rights.

Now you have me curious how many other states make it a felony. I can guess it's the blue and purple states.

(03-07-2020 11:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 10:57 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I posted this in the Rep. Ken Buck Weapons thread, but maybe it was buried, and got no reaction.

Check this out. A gaming podcast dude, who works for Soar, is streaming live at home while drinking. Watch what happens. He was fired a few hours later.

WARNING: Audio NSFW!!!

(03-07-2020 10:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 09:53 PM)VCE Wrote:  An interesting discussion. We absolutely strip felons of their 2A rights, and oftentimes their right to vote. I understand the logic of both of those, but we never strip them of 1A rights; heck, we give Korans to terror scum in Guantanamo. I feel ok with the 2A and voting rights restrictions because they 1) make me feel safer and 2) help my political aims. I'm not sure that's right, Constitutionally and morally speaking. But we also restrict 4th A rights for people on bail/parole. It seems like it should be consistent across the board

But we're not talking about a felony in this debate. We're talking about accidentally discharging a firearm on your own property, with no harm. Afaik, that's not a felony anywhere, and maybe a misdemeanor in some places.

i believe it's a felony in my state of CO

Quote:Any person who knowingly or recklessly discharges a firearm into any dwelling or any other building or occupied structure, or into any motor vehicle occupied by any person, commits the offense of illegal discharge of a firearm.

"A person acts “knowingly” with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. A person acts “knowingly” with respect to a result of his conduct, when he is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause the result.1

A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists.2"

https://www.shouselaw.com/colorado/weapo...harge.html

and almost certainly in many other states. Being inebriated usually qualifies the "reckless" part of the statute

I looked it up. It is a felony in Colorado. A conviction would mean they can take his guns. Okay by me. Felons can't have guns. They give up their 2A rights.

Now you have me curious how many other states make it a felony. I can guess it's the blue and purple states.

Okay, all states have some type of law against illegal discharge of a firearm, but they vary greatly. Some are felonies, some are misdemeanors. Penalties run the gamut from weak to strong.

I'm not going to look it up by state. Where it's a felony, tough noogies. You lose your 2A rights.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/cr...weapon.htm

(03-07-2020 11:26 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 11:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 10:57 PM)VCE Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I posted this in the Rep. Ken Buck Weapons thread, but maybe it was buried, and got no reaction.

Check this out. A gaming podcast dude, who works for Soar, is streaming live at home while drinking. Watch what happens. He was fired a few hours later.

WARNING: Audio NSFW!!!

(03-07-2020 10:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 09:53 PM)VCE Wrote:  An interesting discussion. We absolutely strip felons of their 2A rights, and oftentimes their right to vote. I understand the logic of both of those, but we never strip them of 1A rights; heck, we give Korans to terror scum in Guantanamo. I feel ok with the 2A and voting rights restrictions because they 1) make me feel safer and 2) help my political aims. I'm not sure that's right, Constitutionally and morally speaking. But we also restrict 4th A rights for people on bail/parole. It seems like it should be consistent across the board

But we're not talking about a felony in this debate. We're talking about accidentally discharging a firearm on your own property, with no harm. Afaik, that's not a felony anywhere, and maybe a misdemeanor in some places.

i believe it's a felony in my state of CO

Quote:Any person who knowingly or recklessly discharges a firearm into any dwelling or any other building or occupied structure, or into any motor vehicle occupied by any person, commits the offense of illegal discharge of a firearm.

"A person acts “knowingly” with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. A person acts “knowingly” with respect to a result of his conduct, when he is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause the result.1

A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists.2"

https://www.shouselaw.com/colorado/weapo...harge.html

and almost certainly in many other states. Being inebriated usually qualifies the "reckless" part of the statute

I looked it up. It is a felony in Colorado. A conviction would mean they can take his guns. Okay by me. Felons can't have guns. They give up their 2A rights.

Now you have me curious how many other states make it a felony. I can guess it's the blue and purple states.

Okay, all states have some type of law against illegal discharge of a firearm, but they vary greatly. Some are felonies, some are misdemeanors. Penalties run the gamut from weak to strong.

I'm not going to look it up by state. Where it's a felony, tough noogies. You lose your 2A rights.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/cr...weapon.htm

Yep. What I'm wondering about is why do felons surrender 2A but not 1A rights. These should be treated the same, IMO. And there's the separate question as to whether felons should sacrifice any Constitutional rights post incarceration. It's a good thought exercise.

(03-07-2020 11:42 PM)VCE Wrote:  Yep. What I'm wondering about is why do felons surrender 2A but not 1A rights. These should be treated the same, IMO. And there's the separate question as to whether felons should sacrifice any Constitutional rights post incarceration. It's a good thought exercise.

I am sure that there is a fully developed answer to this, and I don't pretend to be qualified to offer it. But I suspect that the answer has less to do with the relative merits of the 1st Am. versus the 2nd Am., and more to do with the consequences of preventing the state from imposing restrictions.

As loathsome as they may be, in costs little to allow the murderous scum in Gitmo to read the Koran. In fact, it may cost more to do so, in the sense that it plays into the absurd notion that they are martyrs instead of simply losers.

Yet there are plenty of instances in which the 1st Am is restricted: Gag orders in contentious cases, for one example. Allowing witness anonymity in mob-related prosecutions, for another example. Banning political activity within 50 feet of a polling place, for a third example. In each of these instances, the consequences of permitting absolute freedom of speech are more dangerous than the restrictions imposed.

Same with the Second Amendment. If the right to bear arms was absolute and unrestricted, Trigger-Happy Trevor in the video would have a right to purchase a fully automatic machine gun. But of course he doesn't, because the 2nd Am. right is not fully absolute and unconditional. There are reasonable restrictions permitted.

So where do we draw the line? For me, wimp that I am, I have no problem drawing that line well short of actual felony convictions. Trevor should no longer have a right to own any weapon that can penetrate walls.

(03-08-2020 07:17 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 11:42 PM)VCE Wrote:  Yep. What I'm wondering about is why do felons surrender 2A but not 1A rights. These should be treated the same, IMO. And there's the separate question as to whether felons should sacrifice any Constitutional rights post incarceration. It's a good thought exercise.

I am sure that there is a fully developed answer to this, and I don't pretend to be qualified to offer it. But I suspect that the answer has less to do with the relative merits of the 1st Am. versus the 2nd Am., and more to do with the consequences of preventing the state from imposing restrictions.

As loathsome as they may be, in costs little to allow the murderous scum in Gitmo to read the Koran. In fact, it may cost more to do so, in the sense that it plays into the absurd notion that they are martyrs instead of simply losers.

Yet there are plenty of instances in which the 1st Am is restricted: Gag orders in contentious cases, for one example. Allowing witness anonymity in mob-related prosecutions, for another example. Banning political activity within 50 feet of a polling place, for a third example. In each of these instances, the consequences of permitting absolute freedom of speech are more dangerous than the restrictions imposed.

Same with the Second Amendment. If the right to bear arms was absolute and unrestricted, Trigger-Happy Trevor in the video would have a right to purchase a fully automatic machine gun. But of course he doesn't, because the 2nd Am. right is not fully absolute and unconditional. There are reasonable restrictions permitted.

So where do we draw the line? For me, wimp that I am, I have no problem drawing that line well short of actual felony convictions. Trevor should no longer have a right to own any weapon that can penetrate walls.

Tend your own garden Karen.