(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).

Meh, just different perspectives probably developed from different experiences and backgrounds. Growing up around firearms has equipped me for a different comfort level than yours. While I agree that most rational persons wouldn't wish to live next door to an idiot who accidentally and drunkenly discharged a weapon whose round ended up no telling where I just don't see the act itself as terribly egregious. Had someone been killed or injured my take on it would be far different.

In TN even carrying a weapon while under the influence can get you stripped of your carry permit so there is that. While I can legally enter an establishment that serves alcohol, unless there is a posted sign informing me that the owner of the business does not allow it, I cannot be served or consume alcohol while carrying. But sitting in ones own home and being in possession of a weapon while drunk is not specifically illegal.

I rarely ever consume alcohol these days, VERY rarely, I may have had 3 beers, one or two glasses of wine and a couple of shots of bourbon in the last year or so, so for me it's not an issue.

I get your point though and I respect your feelings on the issue.

(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.

Naw, don't stop doing you, it's one of the things I like about you. Monarch seems like a nice guy so I may have toned it down a bit but for a few others around here I probably would have been a bit more caustic.

(03-07-2020 11:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(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:  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...

(03-08-2020 09:28 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(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.

And just like that he's back.

(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.

And this is where our opinions differ. I assume you do not own firearms at all, and while that is certainly your right, IMO as a parent or a husband and as a full grown man (or even a woman assuming there is no man present in the home) one should not only have the right but also a moral obligation and responsibility to protect ones family from bad actors. If you hear someone trying to kick in your door you're going to call 911 if possible and wait for the police to show up while the bad guy is doing God knows what to your property and or your family.

If someone is trying to kick down my door and I can get to my firearm - one of which is always handy - I'm simply waiting until he's in and presenting a clear threat and then I am going to willfully and with malice shoot him, or at the very least shoot at him with the full intention and desire to hit him, negating the need to rely on the police to show up and protect me. When they arrive at my home it would be a far different situation than when they arrive at yours. I just refuse to be an unwilling accomplice in my own injury or demise.

(03-08-2020 10:03 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(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.

And this is where our opinions differ. I assume you do not own firearms at all, and while that is certainly your right, IMO as a parent or a husband and as a full grown man (or even a woman assuming there is no man present in the home) one should not only have the right but also a moral obligation and responsibility to protect ones family from bad actors. If you hear someone trying to kick in your door you're going to call 911 if possible and wait for the police to show up while the bad guy is doing God knows what to your property and or your family.

If someone is trying to kick down my door and I can get to my firearm - one of which is always handy - I'm simply waiting until he's in and presenting a clear threat and then I am going to willfully and with malice shoot him, or at the very least shoot at him with the full intention and desire to hit him, negating the need to rely on the police to show up and protect me. When they arrive at my home it would be a far different situation than when they arrive at yours. I just refuse to be an unwilling accomplice in my own injury or demise.

I have no problem whatsoever with responsible gun ownership. And I will take it a step farther and agree that American society, on balance, is safer and more civilized by reason of the general LAWFUL accessibility of firearms. (My semi-urban house has never been burglarized - - due I am sure to the fact that our local criminal element has no idea that I am unarmed. Does that make me a freeloader off of my armed neighbors? Perhaps. But I'll live with that for now.)

What I do have a problem with is irresponsible gun ownership - - and the knee-jerk assumption on the right that virtually every expression of concern over people who mishandle guns is an agenda-driven attempt to remove guns from those who are responsible and must be resisted no matter what.

shere kahn's replies to my posts are exactly what I was expecting. Is he the exception? Probably not. I think that way too many on the right are prone to pretend that the idiot on the o.p. video is the exception. I don't think that's true. I think that there are a huge percentage of gun owners just like him - - people who have no business having access to lethal weaponry.

And (sorry shere kahn), even karens like me get to vote. If you want my support on resisting the confiscatory legislative proposals that are currently under consideration in Virginia by the Northam administration, you may want to try coming up with a better response than on-line insults on how best to address irresponsible gun ownership.

TripleA suggests a felony-conviction standard. I don't think that's enough, but I at least can see the wisdom to that.

(03-08-2020 10:36 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 10:03 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(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.

And this is where our opinions differ. I assume you do not own firearms at all, and while that is certainly your right, IMO as a parent or a husband and as a full grown man (or even a woman assuming there is no man present in the home) one should not only have the right but also a moral obligation and responsibility to protect ones family from bad actors. If you hear someone trying to kick in your door you're going to call 911 if possible and wait for the police to show up while the bad guy is doing God knows what to your property and or your family.

If someone is trying to kick down my door and I can get to my firearm - one of which is always handy - I'm simply waiting until he's in and presenting a clear threat and then I am going to willfully and with malice shoot him, or at the very least shoot at him with the full intention and desire to hit him, negating the need to rely on the police to show up and protect me. When they arrive at my home it would be a far different situation than when they arrive at yours. I just refuse to be an unwilling accomplice in my own injury or demise.

I have no problem whatsoever with responsible gun ownership. And I will take it a step farther and agree that American society, on balance, is safer and more civilized by reason of the general LAWFUL accessibility of firearms. (My semi-urban house has never been burglarized - - due I am sure to the fact that our local criminal element has no idea that I am unarmed. Does that make me a freeloader off of my armed neighbors? Perhaps. But I'll live with that for now.)

What I do have a problem with is irresponsible gun ownership - - and the knee-jerk assumption on the right that virtually every expression of concern over people who mishandle guns is an agenda-driven attempt to remove guns from those who are responsible and must be resisted no matter what.

shere kahn's replies to my posts are exactly what I was expecting. Is he the exception? Probably not. I think that way too many on the right are prone to pretend that the idiot on the o.p. video is the exception. I don't think that's true. I think that there are a huge percentage of gun owners just like him - - people who have no business having access to lethal weaponry.

And (sorry shere kahn), even karens like me get to vote. If you want my support on resisting the confiscatory legislative proposals that are currently under consideration in Virginia by the Northam administration, you may want to try coming up with a better response than on-line insults on how best to address irresponsible gun ownership.

TripleA suggests a felony-conviction standard. I don't think that's enough, but I at least can see the wisdom to that.

Monarch, don't take Shere so seriously. He's a solid dude, one of my best friends. He's not such an azz in person. He just plays one on the internet.

(03-08-2020 02:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Monarch, don't take Shere so seriously. He's a solid dude, one of my best friends. He's not such an azz in person. He just plays one on the internet.

Dont ruin it.

(03-08-2020 03:18 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 02:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Monarch, don't take Shere so seriously. He's a solid dude, one of my best friends. He's not such an azz in person. He just plays one on the internet.

Dont ruin it.

lol....mummy always said, "stink, your mouth will get ya in trouble one day."

#So

(03-08-2020 03:18 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 02:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Monarch, don't take Shere so seriously. He's a solid dude, one of my best friends. He's not such an azz in person. He just plays one on the internet.

Dont ruin it.

lol....mummy always said, "stink, your mouth will get ya in trouble one day."

#So

#GetApair

(03-08-2020 03:18 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-08-2020 02:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Monarch, don't take Shere so seriously. He's a solid dude, one of my best friends. He's not such an azz in person. He just plays one on the internet.

Dont ruin it.

Ha, a couple more typical posts from you, and everybody will forget mine.

Why do stupid people continue to do stupid things and then post them on the internet like nothing happened?

(03-11-2020 11:01 AM)HoustonCougarNation Wrote:  Why do stupid people continue to do stupid things and then post them on the internet like nothing happened?

Dude was streaming live when he discharged the weapon. Even if he deleted it (which he couldn't b/c the company he worked for owned it), somebody would have saved it and kept it alive.

So he came crawling back the next night to whine about being fired.

(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.

He put no one else in any danger and the only property he damaged was his own. Unless the municipality where he lives has an ordinance against the discharge of firearms he broke no laws. This is no different than your neighbor who's foot slips off the pedal and puts their car through their garage door. This doesn't even come close to being something where you strip someone of their civil rights.